Lords Chamber

Monday 2nd March 2026

(began 3 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:21
None Portrait Business of the House
-

>> Order, order! >> My Lords, we come to some instruments previously debated in instruments previously debated in Grand Committee. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 alternative Dispute Resolution (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026 and one other motion Lord Stockwood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, with leave of the House, I beg to move the motion Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. En bloc question is that the two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

En bloc question is that the two motions. The question is the two motions in the name of Lord Stockwood be agreed to. En bloc, as Stockwood be agreed to. En bloc, as many opinion will say, content to many opinion will say, content to the contrary, not content with contents. Habit Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regulations 2026 Lord Leong. So back to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Standing my name on the Order Paper. This motion be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and one other motion Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. My Lords, on behalf of my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to move the motion standing in his name on the Order Paper En bloc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The two motions in the name of Lord Searchfield be agreed to. En bloc as many as opinion will say, bloc as many as opinion will say, content is contrary, not content. content is contrary, not content. The contents have it Victims and Courts Bill order of consideration. Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I beg to Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I beg to move the order of consideration. Motion standing in my name on the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Question is this motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content with contents. Have it report of the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Flint. My Lords, I beg. To move further consideration of the Bill on report.
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled by the government are largely consequential and minor drafting changes. They relate to drafting changes. They relate to the important topic of child sexual abuse image generators. I have little to say to this group of amendments, other than that the topic they address is one of serious and urgent concern, and the rapid emergence of generative AI has presented new and troubling challenges. And the recent EROC AI scandal, in which an AI model generated harmful sexual content publicly, some of which involve children, highlighted the potential for mainstream tools to be misused in ways that normalise or distribute abusive material.

That episode underlines why robust legal safeguards are essential as technology evolves. The government have continued to delay passing legislation regarding AI regulation, which was alluded to as far back as 2024. When I thank the Minister's assurances that the government will continue to monitor developments in this area and work with industry to protect children from abuse and exploitation. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 199 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendments 200 to 208 Lord Hanson Amendments 200 to 208 Lord Hanson moved formally. Question is that amendments 200 to 208 be agreed to? amendments 200 to 208 be agreed to? En bloc as many as are of that opinion will be will say content to the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content.

The contents of amendment 209 Baroness Kidron. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 209 and thank the noble Lady Morgan, noble Lords Russell
15:27
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
and Cameron Jones for adding their names. I also thank the noble Lady Baron for trying to add her name, Baron for trying to add her name, but such was the enthusiasm, there was no space. The government has, as already discussed, brought a new clauses 92 and 93 to allow clauses 92 and 93 to allow companies and responsible third parties to risk assess the creation parties to risk assess the creation of CSA by gen AI models. That is an important detail. If a company is red teaming or the regular regulator needs to test, they must not be guilty of an offence for doing so.

So. But this new measure is permission. It is not obligation. And my Lords, permission is not enough. Amendment 209 does three things. It makes risk assessment mandatory. It requires mitigation within 14 days, and it holds companies not covered by the Online Safety Act to the same standard via the National Crime Agency. A report from Unicef last month referenced an Interpol study across 11 countries that at least 1.2 million children disclosed having their images manipulated into sexually explicit images in the past year.

In some countries, that is equivalent to one child in every classroom being subjected to this new form of child sexual abuse. The report recommended the introduction of guardrails for AI developers at the design stage, and in a meeting earlier in his Lordships house, we were told repeatedly and graphically reminded that AI CSAM creates appetite in offenders, and what happens online does not stay online. My Lords, we have consulted Ofcom consulting. Parliament has debated this for years and now we are consulting again.

And I argue that there are three reasons for for accepting this amendment right now. First, in committee, I laid this in a similar amendment about LMS to establish exactly which services were covered by the Online Safety Act, and so far, neither Ministers nor officials in repeated meetings have given a clear answer. So I ask the Minister today to say whether all large language models are already in scope and required to do CSA risk assessments, and if the confusion remains, then this amendment is necessary.

We just can't wait. Second is that there is confusion about Ofcom's ability to demand mitigation in a timely manner, or indeed at all. This amendment deals with that by requiring mitigation in 14 days. There is nothing that I have seen yet in the consultation about enforcement, and unless and until we can act swiftly, the Online Safety Act will continue to disappoint. Third, the government plans to consult and then bring changes in secondary legislation, irrespective whether it's affirmative or negative procedure.

In practice, this is beyond meaningful parliamentary amendment oversight. I have been fighting for this group of amendments since 2023, and the best I have had is for the government to take a key offence, which I'm very happy to see, but make it so narrow that it doesn't cover. Most service providers. Risk assessing for CSAM should not be controversial, it should be done, and it should be done in sight of Parliament. During committee, government said there were already clear laws prohibiting CSA creation, but they also made clear there are gaps.

I do not understand how any reasonable person, let alone a government that has claimed violence against women and girls as a core purpose, could, in good faith reject this amendment. Yet at committee, the Minister said that the amendments would place an unmanageable and unnecessary burden. And I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, is the government saying that the burden on a sector, public sector, crime agency or regulator is a reasonable justification for enabling widespread child sexual abuse.

If the argument is that it is too much of a burden, I ask noble Lords themselves to consider is it too much of a burden when it is your daughter, your granddaughter, who has been made to look younger, put on all fours, turn to the camera with a stranger abusing them? Is it too much of a burden when children who cannot yet walk and talk are abused? My Lords, it is not a burden. It is a privilege to check that something you have built and profit from does not accidentally allow for fun by accident or deliberately.

The sexual abuse of children. And I say to noble Lords that if this does go to the vote, it will not be because I enjoy the support of government or opposition, but so that we in this House can put on record the unwillingness of either party, despite the obvious need and the performative outrage at rock to do anything at all about it, I have made clear at every stage that I'm willing to look at drafting, and if it is simply a case of drafting, then I will happily bring something back at Third Reading that is drafted as the government would accept.

But my Lords, this is a harm that organisations such as the IWF have long raised concern about. It was a risk reported related to EROC as early as July last year. It is something the police have asked for for years, and we have been discussing it in Parliament since 2023. What these models can do reflects how they are designed, tested and deployed when they fail to protect children. That is not an accident. It is a design choice. Government Ministers, like the rest of the public, rightly expressed outrage at EROC.

But according to the Centre of Countering Digital Hate, at least 23,000 images were made during using its new tool that featured children. And last week Ofcom announced it could not enforce against EROC, but would instead take action against against for distribution. My Lords, it is not enough and it's after the fact. Not prevention, but huge resources deployed too late and too narrow in the aftermath. My Lords, a risk is something that can be mitigated. A harm is something already done, and this is an opportunity to deal with the risk here and now.

Not maybe and not sometime in the future. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed page 65. Line 84, line. Four. Page 84.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Page 84. Line 42. At end, insert the words printed on the Marshalled List.
15:35
15:36
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
including others in this chamber, was at a meeting that we had at lunchtime today with a variety of of really knowledgeable experts in this area, and even for those of us who have been to these sorts of meetings in the last few years fairly regularly, the latest news is really deeply, deeply shocking. I can't I can't even begin to tell your Lordships how shocking it is. Indeed, there was an expert from Finland there, who is about to deliver a very comprehensive analysis of the status quo, which will be delivered to Ofcom and will be will be published shortly.

She was not unable to give any details. However, what she did tell us, and I must confess, I'm not that shockable, but I did find this pretty shockable that the earliest instance that this research has discovered about a child being abused sexually was a child who was seven hours old, if you can believe that, my Lords. And what is more, we were told that there are manuals available on the web and on the dark web which actually tells perpetrators if they wish to sexually abuse newly born infants, how to do so in such a way that it is not able to be medically identified.

It reminds one slightly of the recent very brave interview that Giselle Pellico gave, which some of your Lordships may have seen. If you haven't, I recommend it in which it appeared that the reason that Giselle did not realise what was happening to her was her husband had indeed availed himself of sufficient medical knowledge to know that when he drugged her, what he also put into the medication was he put muscle relaxants so that the normal physical reaction of any anyone's body, particularly a female body, when it's being violated, is, is to resist it and to seize up.

In the case where you had muscle relaxants administered, of course, that was not the case. So Giselle, when she woke up, didn't feel well, but she didn't realise what had actually happened. And my Lords, there are manuals on the web telling perpetrators how to do that with newly born infants in order that it is not identifiable. My Lords, this is the world we're living in. I am reminded of an analogy that we often used to use when I was a management consultant, when we were trying to indicate to a business that things were getting slightly out of control and weren't going the way they wanted, was the parable of the frog in the water, which is gently increasing in temperature, gently increasing in temperature until the point that it realises that it's actually being boiled alive, by which time it's too late.

And if you look at the scale of the abuse that is happening, the way in which artificial intelligence is accelerating this exponentially, my Lords, you know, it is never too late. But I think I can only add to the words of my noble friend, Lady Vivian. How much longer do we have to keep on beseeching the government to to listen? I reminded the meeting of a meeting that I had a few months ago with a Minister from another department and the minister's team.

The Minister was female, all of the advisors were female. And I remember we asked them, how many of you have children and what age are they? And they told us and we then described some of the things that are happening to children of that age. And you could see visibly the change in demeanour and body language. This was not something that was happening to other people. This is not something that was happening remotely. As you look at the BBC news or you look at stuff online, this is actually happening to us and to our children, and it becomes deeply personal.

And the reason that the noble Baroness and others of us feel so passionately about this is that it is happening. It is happening all around us. It is happening to our children, to our grandchildren, to our nephews, to our nieces. And we appear to be blind to what is going on. We are blind in the sense of finding solutions that are going to work. We are blind to even trying solutions that may not be perfect, but at least are indicating a level of intent to do something about it.

That the companies that are the going to be the aim of the noble Baroness amendment, if it goes through those companies know what they're doing, they they are aware of what they are allowing through, you know, they probably are doing some risk analysis and it's probably not very good reading, but they know exactly what they're doing. And to try and limit the government's approach only to those sort of engines that have clearly been designed primarily to produce child sexual abuse material, that is, you know, that is the tip of the iceberg.

It is all of the other ones that are that are doing the damage. And until and unless we face up to that and we really focus and zero in on them in such a way that they have to pay attention, and we make it seriously painful for them, we are not going to change anything. So I appeal to the government and to the House. Should the noble Lady decide to take it to the vote, to send a very clear signal to the government about what is going on, those of us in this House who are involved in this are frequently approached by backbenchers, the government's own backbenchers from another place, many of whom themselves have young children, who are deeply, deeply concerned about what is going on.

They are desperate for their government to show real leadership and rather than having consultation after consultation, after consultation, to take action. So I appeal to the government and I appeal to the House to look at this very seriously. And if the noble Lady, the Baroness, does decide to divide the house to go with her.
15:42
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. amendment 209. In the name of the noble Baroness Kidron. And I was at the meeting Lord Russell so graphically described. I wish all of you were there too, because if you were, you too would be supporting this amendment. It makes me weep to think, my Lords, of the harm and the damage that's being done to babies, babies and young children. It's shocking. And if we don't vote for this amendment, we should be ashamed of ourselves because it might not be affecting you personally.

But you've got to be caring about the millions of children out there who are having to face this abuse. My Lords, the growth in artificial intelligence tools is exposing children to new and enhanced harms. Perpetrators are using image generators to create hyper realistic child sexual abuse material, which can be used to abuse and extort children, including to financially blackmail young people. My Lords. Devastatingly, Childline is hearing from more and more children who are experiencing this type of abuse.

For example, a 16 year old boy contacted the charity saying that a girl claiming to be his age made fake sexual images of him and threatened to share them to his friends unless he sent her £200. My Lords, what is this world coming to children being blackmailed like this? My Lords, children are speaking about feeling incredibly scared, distressed and isolated in these situations. They're unsure about why this is happening or where to turn to for help.

My Lords, the Internet Watch Foundation has reported a dramatic surge in AI generated child sex abuse material, a four fold increase in just one year. My Lords, because this damaging content is harming children, I welcome the steps by the government to tackle AI generated child sex abuse material in this bill, and for recently announcing changes to the Online Safety Act. My Lords, the recent horrific case of EROC being used to generate child abuse images show that the act does not include the relevant provisions to tackle such abuse.

It is therefore important that we have a regulatory system that tackles risks before they occur by embedding safety by design to AI platform models. My Lords, the Online Safety Act currently focussed on content detection and moderation and therefore adding AI chatbots to the act requires a different approach, as these systems have the ability to generate this content in the first place, my Lords Baroness Kidron amendment. The noble Baroness Kidron amendment. Hallelujah for her will ensure that this risk assessment process tackles the distinct risk of AI platforms.

This should involve auditing, training data and testing systems using methods such as red teaming to ensure that models cannot be exploited to create child sexual abuse material, my Lords, only after we know these models are safe, only then they should be released to the public. So can I ask the government, how does it intend to risk assess AI chatbots so that we don't find ourselves back here again in a few years time, after more and more children have been victimised with us asking the question, how can we find better ways to regulate this technology? My Lords, this is why I urge the whole House and I urge the government to accept this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour)
-
-
internet. I must say I was it revealed figures that I was not aware of and regard myself as relatively well briefed on this relatively well briefed on this matter and and the further information which came out today, particularly from the work that's already been alluded to from from members who were present at that meeting, that much of the of the material which is seen on line, also moves across into the real world. And the use of these elements in the internet to groom children, to set up meetings with them, to then participate with them in illegal acts, has been growing to a point where it's quite clearly an epidemic which must be dealt with.

Where at the at the start of something which I think is extraordinarily unpleasant and needs to be looked at in the round in a way which we have not yet done, being able to do. So, my Lords, having been heavily involved in the Online Safety Act, I'm consciously aware of the fact that we are dealing with legislation which I think has been overtaken by technology. The developments that have happened since we were able to get the bill into, into the, into, into an act have meant that very often the tools that we thought were given to often to, to the, to Ofcom and being used by the government are no longer appropriate, are probably not as far reaching as far as where they're down to, and certainly don't deal with in the speed with which this technology is moving forward.

I've not been able to attend any meetings on this, which Ministers may have had with with my own side, but I gather that there is a whip on against this amendment, and I wonder if the noble Lord who's to respond to this meeting could could think hard about how he wants to play this issue out. It seems to me that one of the problems we have in dealing with legislation in this area is that we're never dealing with the right bill.

The bill that we want to amend is, or the act we want to amend is the Online Safety Act. But obviously, by moving in this bill in another department, we're not maximising the chances of having an output which is going to work. In addition, the way in which Ofcom is interpreting the act seems to make it very difficult for it to reach out to new technologies, such as, as described by Baroness Kidron in her excellent speech introducing this amendment. My Lords, it seems to me that in a moment of transition and when when we're so keen to try and grasp things so that they don't get out of our control, there may be a case here for further work to be done.

Baroness Kidron mentioned that she was happy to try and look again at the wording of her amendment, if it wasn't appropriate for the government, and I'm conscious the government is also trying to move in other areas, and other other departments are also issuing measures which may or may not bear directly on the issue ahead. It does seem to me that there is a very strong case, although I don't know how the Lord is going to respond, my noble friend, for asking for this issue to be kept alive, and brought back perhaps a Third Reading, where a joint amendment might be brought between Baroness Kidron and her supporters and the government to try and make sure that we do what we can, even if it's not the complete picture.

To take this step another way down the road.
15:51
15:52
15:53
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
innovation first safety, later culture of Big Tech. While the bill now will rightly prohibit the now will rightly prohibit the creation of models specifically designed to generate CSA images, it designed to generate CSA images, it remains silent on general purpose models that can be easily manipulated or jailbroken to manipulated or jailbroken to produce the same horrific results as the unacceptable use of tools as the unacceptable use of tools like grok, referred to by my noble friend Baroness Benjamin in her powerful speech, has recently illustrated we cannot leave the safety of our children to chance.

We're facing a technological and moral emergency. The Internet Watch Foundation represented at the meeting, which the noble Lord Russell and my noble friend have mentioned today, has warned of a staggering 380% increase in confirmed cases of AI generated child exploitation imagery. And my Lords, the noble Lord Russell is right. The extent of this abuse is sickening beyond imagination. This amendment mandates a safety by design intervention, requiring providers to proactively risk assess their services and report identified risks to Ofcom within 48 hours.

In committee. The Minister, the noble Lord Hanson, pushed back against this proposal, arguing it would place unmanageable and unnecessary operational burdens on the National Crime Agency and Ofcom. He further claimed these measures risked creating legal uncertainty by duplicating the Online Safety Act. My Lords, both assertions need rebutting first, protecting children from an industrial scale explosion of AI generated abuse is not an unnecessary burden. It is the primary duty of our law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Secondly, we cannot rely on the theoretical protections of an online safety act designed for a pre generative AI world.

Ofcom itself has maintained what might be called a tactical ambiguity about how the act applies to standalone AI chat bots and large language models. Alongside the noble Baroness Kidron. And we will be supporting her if she puts this to a vote. My Lords, we are asking for an ex-ante duty. Providers must check whether their models can be used to generate CSAM before they're released to the public. Voluntary commitments and retrospective enforcement are simply not enough. The government has already committed to this principle.

It's time to put that commitment into statute. My Lords, I urge the Minister to accept amendment 209 and ensure we move away from ex post measures that only address harm after a child has been victimised. My Lords, the current definitions of search and user to user services do not neatly or comprehensively capture these new generative technologies, and we cannot allow a situation where tech developers release highly capable models to the public without first explicitly checking whether they can be used to generate CSAM voluntary commitments and retrospective civil enforcement are simply not enough.

We need this explicit statutory duty on the face of the bill today, and I urge the of the bill today, and I urge the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to accept amendment 209. My Lords, amendment 209, in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of relevant online services to assess relevant online services to assess and address the risks that their platforms may be used for the creation, sharing or facilitation creation, sharing or facilitation of child sexual abuse material, placing a strengthened duty upon
15:57
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
them to take preventative action. When Lords. More than anyone in this chamber, I fully recognise the intention behind strengthening preventative mechanisms and ensuring that providers properly assess and mitigate risks to children, requiring companies to examine how their services may facilitate abuse is, in principle, entirely sensible. The scale and evolving nature of online exploitation means the proactive duties are essential. However, I do have some concerns about the proposed mechanism about which I hope the noble Lord, the Minister may also be able to provide some input.

The amendment appears to rely on providers conducting their own risk assessments. That immediately raises several practical questions, such as what objective standard would those assessments be measured against? Whether there be statutory guidance, setting out minimum criteria, and how consistency would be ensured across companies of vastly different sizes and capabilities? It also remains the crucial question of what enforcement mechanisms would apply if an assessment or superficial or inadequate, and without clear parameters and oversight, there is a danger that such a system could become uneven in practice, and I would welcome reassurance from the Minister as to how the government intend to ensure that risk based duties in this space are transparent and robust for the purposes of child protection.

My Lords, the question is not whether we act, but how we all share the same objective of reducing the prevalence of child sexual abuse material and protect children from exploitation. The challenge is ensuring that the mechanisms we legislate for are clear, enforceable in practice, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
15:59
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling the amendment and for her commitment to doing all we can to prevent online harms. And I must prevent online harms. And I must say, as well, I'm struck very strongly by the contributions of the noble Lady Baroness Benjamin, the noble and learned Lord Pannick, the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, noble Baroness Burton, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the Earl of Erroll. Look, this is this is a really serious issue, and the government is committed to making sure that we have, as I have tried to do, have constructive engagement with the noble Lady, including one formal and one informal meeting this very day to ensure that we can make this a work in the interests of doing what everybody in this House wants to do, which is to ensure that we, particularly with the rapid development of technology that the public, especially children, are safeguarded from harm.

This government is committed to tackling sexual exploitation and abuse and to ensuring that new technologies are developed and deployed responsibly. And I know it matters, and I know it's important, and I know that this government wants to make sure that we deal with it now. A few weeks ago, the EROC A1 chatbot was used to create and share vile, degrading, non-consensual, intimate deepfakes. And quite honestly, my Lords, this House should not ensure that no one should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology.

And we said at the time, from the Prime Minister to the DSIT secretary, that we will do something in order to stamp this demeaning and illegal image production out. Now, the government and I speak here today for the government, but I speak for the Home Office, but I also speak for DSIT, and I speak for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when we say that government has taken decisive action in this bill, I draw noble Lords attentions to clauses 65 to 76 of the Bill, which we've already brought forward in this bill, to prohibit the creation of AI models that are specifically designed to generate child sexual abuse material.

But I'll be frank with this house that we don't think we've done enough in that bill so far, and things are moving. And that is why we have this very day tabled again, an amendment which will be debated later in the month, I hope on the 18th, possibly the 18th of March, which will confer a regulation making power to enable us to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to include unregulated generative AI services such as chat box.

It should have gone down no later than 4:00 today. I apologise to the house that they haven't got sight of it now. I have tried to give details of the proposed amendment to the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, but the amendment will bring forward to ensure that services are bound to assess the level of risk held on those services, and to take steps to protect users from illegal material, including preventing CSAM. Now, I'm happy to confirm to noble Lords that this will allow us to impose duties on these services that correspond to, or are similar to, the Act's duties on tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse content.

Chat box providers will have a legal duty to protect all users from illegal content, including non-consensual sexual deepfakes, and where chat box continue to generate. Well, let me just finish this sentence and where chat box continue to generate such content, they should expect to face the consequences of breaking the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law that we hope this House will pass. Many thanks for giving way, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many thanks for giving way, but I think that if I was in the same meeting as the noble Lord, the Minister officials were unable to Minister officials were unable to say that llms and generative models say that llms and generative models would be covered by that. And indeed, they said the policy of the government was chat bots only, and government was chat bots only, and the chat bots is the subject of another amendment I have later in, in, in, in a report.

So I think that we have to be clear that the amendment in front of us is only remaining here because I was told this afternoon that the new government amendment would not cover the same territory.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government amendment has been tabled. What I'm asking for been tabled. What I'm asking for the noble Lady to do is whether she does this is a matter for her, self-evidently, but I'm asking her self-evidently, but I'm asking her to look at withdrawing her amendment, to look at the amendment that we have tabled today from a that we have tabled today from a cross-party basis on behalf of DSIT and the Home Office, the Department I represent here today that will be debated around the 18th.

She can make comments at that stage on that particular amendment. Now, I'm trying to meet the needs of the House and the the needs of the government to respond to what are complex and difficult challenges. And all I say is that by bringing more AI services into the scope of the Online Safety Act, we will ensure that there is clear, consistent regulatory framework which will allow us to hold companies to account. We've also introduced the technology Testing Defence in clause 93 that will enable persons authorised by the Secretary of State to test technology for these harms.

The defence will give providers reassurance in testing the robustness of their model. Safeguards, identify weaknesses and design out harmful inputs and this in turn will, I would argue, reduce the risk of their models being criminally misused, particularly to abuse women and children. This further supports all AI companies in scope of the Online Safety Act in their risk assessment obligations. Now, with those measures, I would say to the noble Lady, she will have to make a judgement on it, but I will say to her that the government considers that amendment 209 is therefore unnecessary, as it cuts across the approach that I've outlined to date, both in the Bill and in clause 93, and the clauses I've already outlined earlier, and the proposed amendment that I've shared with the as best I can prior to this debate today, and which the House can have a chance to look at now it is published, the cuts across that duty, and it imposes a broad statutory duty on online services, duplicating regulatory mechanisms, and it could create legal uncertainty.

Now I know again, the noble Lord Clement-Jones challenged me on that. That is the view of Ministers, officials, our legal departments and ensuring that we are worried about the similar enforcement routes outside the Online Safety Act framework. Now, again, we do take this seriously. I mean, the points that the noble Baroness Benjamin has made are extremely important. I wasn't able to attend the briefing earlier, but I you know, I know how much that has impacted members who have spoken in this discussion.

Today, the National Crime Agency and police will play a key role in protecting children from UK child abuse. It is warned that the scale and complexity of online child sexual abuse is resulting in tens of millions of annual referrals of suspected online sexual abuse. Now, policing resources are best spent on protecting children and arresting offenders, so it is appropriate that Ofcom continue to play a critical regulatory role in preventing and tackling the AI generation of child sexual abuse material.

Now, I've tried to persuade the noble Lady if I haven't, then that will have to be a division. I don't want there to be a division because I think this House should speak with one voice on tackling this particular issue. The laudable objectives of the amendment are, we believe, better addressed through both the existing legislative framework and the targeted government amendment. We've tabled today to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to bring illegal content duties in line for chat box, which will mean providers need to mitigate potential risks to prevent children having such abuse and facing such abuse.

I hope that I have convinced the noble Lady I am. Again. I apologise to the House for the lateness of the tabling of the amendment. We're trying to work across government on this matter and that amendment has been tabled. It will be debated on the 18th. And in the light of that, I hold the noble Lady would feel able to withdraw her amendment.
16:07
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I. point of information it would be useful to say that the clause of 64 and 65 to which the noble Minister refers are in fact a narrowing of an original amendment put laid by myself and other noble Lords, that the government deliberately narrowed. So it only deals with. Electronic files that have been deliberately and exclusively created for to create child sexual abuse. And I do very much welcome those. However, if the government hadn't narrowed that amendment, I wouldn't be standing here today with this amendment.

And I do say to the noble Lord, the Minister, I'm grateful for his time. I'm happy for the for the chat bot amendment in as far as it goes. And in as much as I have seen it an hour before everyone else. But it doesn't deal with this issue. And I rang the noble Lord myself this morning, asked for a meeting to say if if you can tell me that this is covered by the chat bot amendment, and if you can say it's already covered in another way, I will back down.

But I'm afraid nobody could tell me that. And that is because it isn't. And that's just how it is. And I'm afraid I want to say to the noble Lord on the official opposition, speaking for the official opposition. No, no, no, it's not OK to say, you know, we must work out how this is an opportunity to work out how we always do it. This way we get an amendment, we get a power. Ofcom does the guidance, government does the guidance.

And I'm going to say to the whole House, particularly my friends on the Labour benches who may be considering voting against this. Have any of you seen child sexual abuse made out of your image? I have. It's not funny. It's serious, and it's easily done. And I think it is unacceptable to vote against an amendment that only says risk assess. Risk assess. It is not OK to put a product out in the world if you don't have any responsibility for the harm it causes.

So, my Lords, I don't expect I win because the government is whipping against and the opposition is sitting on their hands. But I think to say to those people who are in a vortex of this kind of abuse, that at least some of some of us in this House have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their back. The noble Lady give way when she says, some of us in this House are says, some of us in this House are concerned about this issue, I want to say to her that all of us in this House are concerned about this this House are concerned about this issue. The noble Lady, the noble Lord Davies of Gower myself have many, many differences in this house, but we are at one in trying house, but we are at one in trying to improve the position of the regulations to tackle this issue.

The amendment that I've tabled is The amendment that I've tabled is very important. Step forward on behalf of the government on a DSIT and Home Office basis, and I'm grateful for the support for the noble Lord. I do not want to have a division in this House where the government and the opposition may well win that vote, but I don't want that division to happen. I want us to go forward in a constructive way, to look at the amendments that have tabled and to people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I say to the noble Lord, there is only one way to stop a division on this issue, which is either to on this issue, which is either to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and say it is covered, or that we will keep it alive till Third Reading so that we can make sure it's covered. And if I have insulted anyone by suggesting some of us are willing to walk through of us are willing to walk through the lobby to protect children from child sexual abuse, forgive me, but child sexual abuse, forgive me, but unless unless the Minister has something to say, I am going to, as a matter of principle, divide the house.

Yeah.
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:23
16:23
None Portrait Amendment:g234 Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

>> My Lords, I rise to speak to government amendments government amendments 234235237249250448 and 467. My Lords, these give effect to recommendation one of the noble recommendation one of the noble Lady Baroness Casey National audit on on group based child sexual on on group based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The noble Lady recommended that the law should be changed so that an adult who engages in penetrative sexual activity with a child who is under 16 is charged with rape.

I begin by thanking the noble Lady Baroness Casey for the audit. She's worked closely with us as we develop these offences, and it was important to us to ensure that we met her objectives. I want to thank her for her strong support of the government's proposals. We are taking a two stage approach. First, we are starting with the amendments being debated today. These create new offences that cover rape and other penetrative sexual activity with a child under 16 by an adult.

The important thing to note is that the prosecution does not have to prove that the child did not consent, so ostensible or purported consent or reasonable belief in consent is completely irrelevant. This eliminates any questions of whether an under 16 seemed to have consented. All that matters is the age of the child. If the child is under 13, then the defendant's belief about their age is irrelevant. But if the child is aged 13 to 15, then an adult who believed that the child was aged 16 or over would not be guilty, but only if that belief was reasonably held.

This mirrors the existing approach in relation to sexual offences committed against children. The maximum penalty for these offences will be life imprisonment, and these offences will sit alongside existing ones in relation to sexual activity with and towards children. The Crown Prosecution Service will therefore retain discretion to charge the full range of child sex offences where appropriate, though we expect the use of other offences will be very limited. And as with existing offences against children under 13, the CPS will prioritise the more serious charges.

We are also tabling the necessary consequential amendments such as ensuring where the the relative, where the relevant criteria are met, that offenders will be eligible for extended determinate sentences. This brings me to the second stage. The noble Lady Baroness Casey was clear in her audit that the law in this area needs to be changed to ensure that children are treated as children. So alongside our new offences, we are committed to doing two things. We are going to carry out a public consultation which will look at how to treat what are known as close in age relationships within the cohort of relevant child sexual offences, and this responds to the noble Lady's recommendation that the government should consider a close in age exemption to prevent the criminalisation of teenagers who are in relationships with each other.

We will also conduct a post-implementation review of the new offences to test the impact they are having. We know that there are some concerns about the element of reasonable belief in age, and this review will look closely at how that works in practice. My Lords, I can assure this House that the government will continue to progress this work as a matter of priority to ensure that we get the law right in the long term. I beg to move. Hear, hear!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed schedule nine,
16:26
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-

page 31 five. Line 33. At the end, insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, we believe that
16:27
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> My Lords, we believe that amendment two, three, five delivers on Baroness Casey crucial recommendation from her national recommendation from her national audit. By creating these strict liability offences where consent is rightly irrelevant and offence of reasonable belief in age cannot apply, these clauses send an important signal, making it unambiguously clear that no adult can claim ignorance or excuse when preying on the young and vulnerable. The audit explained how grooming gangs repeatedly evaded rape charges for penetrative sex, with 13 to 15 year olds.

Cases were downgraded or dropped because victims were misperceived as having consented or being in love with abusers, despite children under 16 being legally incapable of consent, perpetrators avoided accountability by claiming it was reasonable to believe the victims were older than 16, perhaps due to their demeanour or because they had fake ID. These clauses strip away both loopholes for good, and on these benches we give them our full support. Turning to amendment 236, the intent to elevate penetrative offences against young teens to rape is laudable.

But as we signalled in committee, we have several concerns. Mandating rape charges for every act of intercourse with a child under 16th May sound resolute, but it introduces unnecessary evidentiary hurdles. Extra elements that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that could result in guilty offenders walking free. Forcing every case into a life sentence framework risks deterring pleas from defendants and unnerving juries. Driving up acquittals on technicalities. Amendment 236 also retains the reasonable belief in age defence, which, as Baroness Casey highlighted, offenders have exploited to evade justice.

My Lords, we believe the government's approach offers a surer path to protecting vulnerable children and it has our support.
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:36
None Portrait Amendment:239A Lord Nash (Conservative)
-

customers across the world. It is estimated that there are around 70 million child sexual abuse images floating around the internet, many of which are the very young children, and some quite a few, sadly even of babies. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool mentioned earlier, and many depict incest, some of the victims in these images have been viewed tens of millions of times. Imagine what it is like as a young girl or an adult, walking down the street and seeing a man, and it would be a man.

Look at you, peer at you for a few seconds and to wonder whether that man has seen you being raped online. And with the advent of AI, it is, as we now know, possible using just text to speech to to generate increasingly appalling images. And this country is depending on whose statistics you look at, the second or third largest consumer of this dreadful stuff in the world. The National Crime Agency issued a report last month saying that they are arresting 1000 paedophiles a month in this country.

There were tens of thousands of outstanding investigations, and it is estimated doubt that some of this is undoubtedly fuelled by addiction to pornography and the desire for even more extreme content. Under existing legislation, the material can only be taken down once it has been seen often by children. And with live streaming of this abuse, which is a very large industry, the images are watched in the moment and often immediately taken down. The tech companies do already have methods of taking down much of this non-live stream material, but most of them are not using these methods effectively.

There is now technology available to block on device the viewing of child sexual abuse images, or the making or live streaming of them. My amendment would mandate that this technology is installed on smartphones and tablets supplied in the UK, and of course it will be open to manufacturers to develop their own technology to do this, if they did not want to purchase a third party product. And everyone I've spoken to, from regulators to technology experts to the companies themselves, are completely confident that that can be done.

The problem is not the technology. It is achieving very high accuracy levels 99% and very low false positives under 1%. And of course, the government will need to be satisfied that the technology works effectively and several discussions have already taken place with the Home Office, DSIT and the Internet Watch Foundation with the technology company. I introduced to them about this. They may also initially, at least because of the difficulty sometimes of telling a 16 or 17 year old from an 18 year old want to bring it in effective for a lower age.

But as at least half of children being abused are under 13, that would be a very good start. My amendment requires the regulations to be brought into force within 12 months, but of course the regulations could mandate a further period for implementation. Noble Lords will have noted that in place of my original amendment 29, I now have down amendment 239 a the difference is the addition of clause four b to ensure user to user privacy to ensure user privacy, which is perfectly possible under the technology.

Because it is on device, the data is not stored and does not go into the cloud. My Lords, we have the opportunity under this bill to effectively hamper this appalling activity indeed industry, thereby saving and protecting many children from harm. And I believe we have a moral obligation to pass this into law.
16:41
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Proposed after clause 76, in insert the following new clause the words as printed on the motion list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have put my name to amendment 239 a in the name of the noble Lord, 239 a in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, as I believe we need to protect our children, however and protect our children, however and wherever we can, from child sexual abuse material being created and abuse material being created and shared. My Lords, shockingly, there are over 70 million images. There are over 70 million images. There are 70 million images being circulated around the world far beyond these shores via the scourge of the online world.

Sexual imagery involving children as young as 7 to 11 being exploited and watched by an ever growing audience. My Lords, this is not only immoral, but cruel, despicable and illegal. And it makes me weep to think that children's childhood is being snatched away from them as we speak. My Lords, organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation have helped secure arrest of those for CSAM offences. But despite those arrests, the numbers of offenders continues to grow.

Demand is not being diminished, it's being fed by sick minded, perverted individuals. Brokenheartedly my Lords, where demand for new imagery grows, so does the abuse of real children to produce it. My Lords, social media is central to how offenders operate. 40% of CSAM offenders attempted to contact a child after viewing material, with 70% doing so online, mostly through social media, gaming and messaging platforms. 77% of offenders found CSAM on the open web, with 29% citing social media.

My Lords, I have met young people who have remained victims of this vile practice years after they have become adults. They describe the ongoing harm they suffer because of the images of their abuse, remain in circulation. They've had their abuse material viewed millions and millions of times. Richards research has confirmed that survivors with an online element to their abuse found significantly higher levels of long lasting harm, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-harm, substance abuse, social isolation and sexual dysfunction.

That's compared to survivors who abuse was never recorded or shared online. My Lords, the cruelty they have to endure extends even further. Some survivors are actively hunted in adult life by offenders seeking to see how they look today. Can you believe this? With AI, offenders are now generating new abuse imagery featuring adult survivors. My Lords, in some cases producing material in which the survivor appears to be abusing their younger self. My Lords, doesn't that make you want to cry? Imagine if it was your child, your grandchild, and what it means to live with that reality.

Imagine a survivor. As Lord Nash has described, walking down the street, catching the eye of a stranger and immediately involuntary thing. Have you seen the image of me being abused? My Lords, doesn't that make your heart bleed? This is the daily experience of people who abuse is permanently accessible online. But my Lords, we have the technology to detect, block and remove CSAM. It exists and it is already operational on some phones. On-device AI software developed by companies in this area can identify and prevent the creation and sharing of harmful imagery in real time without accessing encrypted communications.

Because the intervention calls on the device itself before content is shared, it does not require platforms to compromise end to end encrypted encryption. My Lords, the Internet Watch Foundation have the tools to identify CSAM against a database of previously confirmed material and flag it for removal. These tools are proven, scalable, and available now. Why not use them? So rather than placing obligations on platforms to moderate content after abuse material has been shared, let's target the hardware layer that is the device on which CSAM is created and consumed.

This will mandate to previous prevention at source. My Lords, earlier today I was in the meeting with developers of this technology and they are totally confident it can be easily rolled out if the will is there. My Lords, this will use existing regulatory policies and of course take privacy issues into consideration. It will place a responsibility on manufacturers and distributors already subject to product safety law. My Lords, we owe it not only to the survivor of child sex, the survivors of child sexual abuse material, but any potential victim who is being targeted.

As I said right now as we speak. So I urge the government to please, please, please accept this amendment.
16:47
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
And I'm most grateful. amendment forward. My Lords, we're all familiar with our smartphones of regular updates, which eat more and more of its its memory and use up more and more of its battery. And they happen systematically, usually for security reasons, and they happen very regularly, and they happen pretty seamlessly. What I was not aware before the noble Lord brought forward his amendment, and we've had some discussions and meetings around it is, to some degree, the technology that we're talking about to actually try and intercede and stop our devices being able to access or use this sort of material already exists on our telephones.

Who amongst us who has an iPhone like myself, knew that the software to actually prevent and screen child sexual abuse material already exists, but it can only be activated if you go into the parental controls and actually turn the parental controls on, at which point it then starts working. I had no idea that that was embedded in in my phone. The technology exists. The large manufacturers of these of these gadgets already have access to that technology. In some instances, they have already developed it to a very sophisticated level, but for all sorts of reasons have chosen not to roll it out.

One of the major arguments that is used against this sort of thing being rolled out is the the Free Speech Brigade. One of Whom's protagonists, I'm glad to see are not in the chamber today, will always say free speech trumps everything else and unfortunate choice of verb, I know, but that is the argument that is put forward. But the reality is, the technology that we're talking about works in such a way that in no way, shape or form does it prevent free speech.

It does not in any way, shape or form intervene with those those platforms which are encrypted. It operates separately to those, but works in such a way that without revealing what is going on in those encrypted messages, it stops the sort of material that we're talking about actually getting involved in the first place. And in my view, that is not exactly an interdiction of free speech. So for all these reasons, I would ask the government to look at this very, very carefully and closely.

We're not dealing with some wonderful space age technology that has yet to be developed. We're talking about technology which already exists. There are individuals who have a huge amount of knowledge and experience in this area. It is probably a brilliant example of Her Majesty's Government pursuing one of its avowed aims, which is to work more closely with with foreign jurisdictions together, to try and work together to in this sort of area. So for all these reasons, I do hope that the government will give a positive response we will not have.

Oh, it's very difficult or even worse, we will have a consultation. I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response. I seem to spend most of my time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I seem to spend most of my time in speaking on issues related to online safety, apologising for the fact that the act is not as up to fact that the act is not as up to date or efficient as an effective as it should be. But here is another example of where technology another example of where technology has overtaken the good work that we did all these years ago to try and bring forward that legislation. I learned about this at the same meeting as has been referred to already, and I must say, at first sight it looks a though it's an answer to a lot of problems that we have with the way in which younger
16:51
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour)
-
-
people in particular, interact with the internet. In pursuing the online safety bill, those of us who were involved will be aware that we were very, very largely looking at were very, very largely looking at the user end of material, of of the of the cycle and looking at the apps and the interaction with the apps and the interaction with the apps that were being generated by those who are involved in servicing the internet. We didn't look at technology in the in the hardware side at all, I don't think, and had no real thought about anything that we were dealing with in that bill affecting it.

And yet this seems a very interesting and very easy to adopt technology that would solve a lot of problems in relation to issues about spread of material, which we would think should not be available where there are things like age bars or other means of providing gaps in the access to it. But there are always going to be problems with how we manage the changeover between childhood and adulthood, and we are aware that the technology is moving fast on that as well.

And it may well be that what was, what is, what is current today may well be out of date by the time we get to the point where this bill becomes law. But it does seem to me that the government should look very, very closely at the way in which this technology operates to prevent, at the equipment level, the access to material which should not be seen, particularly by children. There will as as the noble Lord Russell has said, be issues about free speech.

And I don't think we should underestimate those. There are obviously ways in which this could be used against societal values, but for the particularity of of how children are to be protected, making them making the equipment they buy impossible to for them to access material which they should by law, not see, seems to me a very, very useful way forward, and I do commend it to Ministers.
16:53
16:53
16:53
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
powerfully by the noble Lord Nash. My Lords, he very clearly set out My Lords, he very clearly set out that the urgent issues involved, as indeed did my noble friend Baroness Benjamin and the noble Lord Russell, and all of us over there in the same meeting which we've referred same meeting which we've referred to before. My Lords, we are at both a technological and moral crisis point. As we've debated in a previous group regarding child sexual abuse material online, we're facing a children's mental health catastrophe and the ubiquity of child sexual abuse.

Material is a central driver of that catastrophe, my Lords, as the noble Lord, Nash has explained, his amendment mandates that manufacturers and importers of smartphones and tablets ensure their devices satisfy a CSAM requirement to prevent the creation, viewing and sharing of such material. The question, however, clearly arises as to whether this would undermine encryption or privacy. And my Lords, we do recognise that the noble Lord Nash, in his revised amendment 239 A, does indeed include a duty of privacy in his regulations and in my view, my Lords, the thing to avoid is the the the chance that technological fix of this kind could involve some degree of surveillance.

My Lords, and I do agree with the noble Lord Russell that the technology does look at first sight, extremely promising. And indeed, as the noble Lord Stevenson mentioned. But my Lords, I think before taking this further, we do need to be absolutely sure about the robustness of this technology and its impact on privacy by requiring software to be pre-loaded at the system level, we move away from the model of parental controls and platform responsibility, and we would place the duty on the manufacturers who profit from these devices, my Lords.

And quite apart from that, we do, of course, also need to ensure that the platforms take action. Now, my Lords, the Minister may promise firmer further consultation, but, my Lords, we don't need much more consultation to know that the status quo is failing. We need to find a solution now, rather than playing an endless game of digital catch up. And as others have urged, my Lords, I do hope that the government will take a look at this proposal urgently, closely and seriously.
16:56
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. >> My Lords. This group of amendments addresses one of the greatest and most distressing areas of criminality the sexual exploitation of children and the creation circulation of child sexual abuse material. There will be no disagreement amongst noble Lords about the objective behind these amendments. The scale of this crime is deeply alarming and becoming increasingly technologically sophisticated. The question before us is not whether we act, but how. And I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble Lord, my noble friend, Lord Nash.

Once again, I entirely understand the support in the underlying aim, the goal of ensuring that devices supplied in the UK have highly effective, tamper proof systems. Software capable of preventing the transmission or viewing of child sexual abuse material is a commendable one. Preventing abuse at source is always preferable to prosecuting it after the harm has occurred, and I recognise that amendment two, three nine includes express provisions intended to safeguard user privacy, requiring that any such software must operate in a way that does not collect, retain, copy or transmit data outside the device, nor determine the identity of the user.

It also provides for affirmative parliamentary approval of the regulations. However, it still hard to overlook the practical challenges that may arise from this amendment. Determined offenders frequently exploit encrypted platforms and modify operating systems, often using overseas hosted services, a requirement limited to devices supplied for use in the UK could be circumvented by overseas purchases or software alterations, even with privacy safeguards written into the regulation making power, this amendment may still raise complex issues relating to encryption.

Relating, I beg your pardon, to encryption, cybersecurity, technical feasibility and enforcement. Mandating tamper proof software across all relevant devices would represent a significant expansion of the regulatory framework established under the Product Security and Telecommunications Telecommunications Infrastructure Act of 2022. My Lords, while I strongly support the objective of forestalling child sexual exploitation and disrupting the circulation of abuse material, I'm not yet persuaded that this amendment provides a workable legislative solution. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the government are strengthening preventative technology and ensuring that industry plays a meaningful role in protecting children, while maintaining a framework that is technically feasible and legally robust.
16:59
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Can I say I'm grateful to the noble Lord Nash for setting out his amendments? I know that he met with my colleague, Minister, the noble Lady Baroness Lloyd last week, and I hope that was a productive discussion. I was pleased to meet with him as well. Sometime in the last few months. I lost track of the time now, but it was sometime in the last few months when he very graciously brought along some representatives of companies that were developing the technology that he's talked about today, and I found that a useful meeting.

I acknowledge the noble Lords intention to protect children through this amendment. And I want to be clear, as I was in the previous amendments, that the government shares the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and to prevent the spread of CSAM online. And I hope that my response to the noble Lady Kidron showed that it is a matter that the government is taking seriously. That is why in the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images.

And I say to the noble Lord, we agree strongly that nudity detection on a device is an effective way in which this could be achieved. And the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble noble friend Lord Stevenson, agreed that we should be looking at that matter. And I say to them both as well, that we've had the discussion with the noble Lord Nash, and we've companies, and we want to do further work on this. And I say we want to do further work on this for the very reasons the noble Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord Davies of Gower have indicated.

We have to get this right. We need to ensure that we understand how best to implement interventions in practice. And whilst I acknowledge the noble Lords intention, it's important to recognise that his amendment focuses primarily on offenders consumption of CSAM and with the technology available today, such an approach would in practice intervene mainly on the most extreme categories of abuse, such as category A or prepubescent material. And I just want to again, I take the point that the noble Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord Davies of Gower have made that we need to ensure the technology works and works effectively.

And that's not to say that it doesn't, because we've had the discussion. I've had the the close examination. I think my officials in the Home Office met with the company again since then, and we share the determination to stop this. However, the government also is wanting to take a slightly different approach through focusing on prevention with children in the first place, stopping children from ever taking, sharing or viewing nude imagery in the first place. And that approach directly addresses the direct harm to the child at the earliest point in the abuse pathway, rather than acting only once, an offender has already obtained the worst material.

If we focus on interventions that block the initial production and circulation of nude imagery, we can prevent grooming and sextortion at their source, whilst also dramatically reducing the volume of new CSAM. Now, this would be a more advanced and protective approach than CSAM only detection, and one which critically not only reduces harm to children, but also limits the supply of new CSAM and constraints. Offenders ability to obtain consent at all. Now I want to ensure that the noble Lords points are not lost.

I want to ensure and tell him that the Home Office is working closely with our law enforcement colleagues and across wider government departments, and are moving at real pace. There is substantial work underway to advance the upstream protections that he has discussed that I've mentioned to him today. There is collaboration across agencies which has been both constructive and energetic, and I would be very happy to meet with him. Further to detail the progress we're making on this direction of work as a whole.

I'm, you know, sympathetic to the noble Lords aims. I'm fully aligned on the ends that we believe we can achieve. But I have to say to him that the amendment two, three, nine would prove difficult in its current form at the current state of development that we've got, and we can't accept it today, but we want to look further at other aspects of work. He may not appreciate this. I hope he does, but I want to invite him to both withdraw his amendment, but also on a clear, understanding and clear commitment that DSIT Ministers in particular, and Home Office Ministers such as myself will meet with him ahead of again the 18th of March.

In the crossovers, the discussions we've had with the noble Lady Baroness Kidron amendment to work through the merits of his approach and the alternatives we're proposing. In the government's view, which is a more comprehensive way of achieving our shared end goal of preventing the proliferation of child sexual abuse, and in doing so, systematically protecting children from grooming. Now, I hope he can accept that. But I would just suggest to him that there's not a difference between us. We're looking to do more work, and we want to make sure for the very reasons the noble Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord Davies of Gower have mentioned that the technology has a feasible and impactful way to achieve the same objective in due course.
17:04
17:05
None Portrait Amendment:240 Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-

caused by clause 84. It was raised at committee and I believe these at committee and I believe these two amendments are proportionate. The current clause does not cover a multitude of ways. Reports of abuse multitude of ways. Reports of abuse can be concealed and allow many who intentionally conceal to slip intentionally conceal to slip through the net. Clause 84 is only triggered when the person acting to conceal abuse does so by blocking conceal abuse does so by blocking or deterring someone under the new duty from making a report.

So these two amendments seek to strengthen what is currently there. It is broader than the current clause, which we believe currently means that it would be a two tier system, because I'm not sure how we can justify an offence which would criminalise a teacher, but not a religious predator. If I turn to my amendments in my name, many were taken from my private member's bill on this, but I took some time to consider what should priority, and those two would be 246 and 248 b.

For clarity, I won't be seeking to divide on any others in my sole name in the group, but I'd be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, the Minister's views on 246 and 248 B are. Like others. I've been working on this issue for a number of years. In 2015, the then Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch asked me to author a report on duty of care in sport. Mandatory reporting was high on the list of issues that needed to be resolved, the other being positions of trust where the loophole has now partially been closed.

Lord Oates coaches and volunteers have very positive relationships with young people. These amendments are not to overburden them, but to offer protection. Individuals may be worried about reporting, so they do need more guidance and a framework of law will do that. Nobody wants to get it wrong and we have to be mindful. There may be some malicious reporting, but as a young athlete in my early 20s, I witnessed inappropriate behaviour of a coach. Nothing that I could quite put my finger on.

You could argue it was another time when less was known. However, we are now seeing a number of historic cases. As a young athlete, there was no framework or policy or procedure to be able to raise it. I didn't quite have the words to express what I saw. I didn't have evidence. I didn't witness abuse. There was no direct disclosure. But what I was trying to explain might have triggered greater awareness of this behaviour. I didn't know what I now know. Years later, that coach was charged with a historic offences in the 1970s and was sentenced to seven and a half years in jail.

When the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse IICSA was announced. I expected much movement. In March 2020, the Office of National Statistics, estimated at 3.1 million adults in England and Wales have experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. IICSA concluded that child sexual abuse was endemic and it permeated all sections of society, an estimated that more than 1 in 6 girls and 1 in 20 boys have been sexually abused in the UK every year. On average, it takes victims 26 years to disclose abuse.

The IICSA report is quoted in the Equality Impact Assessment, saying that current arrangements are confusing, unfocused and ineffective. The Local Government Association estimates that only 1 in 3 children who are sexually abused by an adult told someone. According to the centre for Crime and Justice Studies, it's estimated that 85% of child sexual abuse goes undetected and unreported. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse and changes need to be made. I do not believe that His Majesty's Government proposals go far enough, and may make the public think that the mandatory reporting recommendations are being acted on.

I don't believe it will make enough of a difference. The key item in the equality impact assessment is table one, paragraph 31 on page nine. Given that the Children's Commissioner for England estimated in 2015 that only 1 in 8 cases of abuse comes to the attention of authorities, an increase in reports of 0.3% will bring the proportion of unreported, down from 87.5% all the way to 87.46%, an increase of 0.3%. On the numbers of reports would bring the proportion of would bring the proportion of reported abuse, up from 12.5% to 12.54%.

I don't attempt to guess what the noble Lord the Minister, might say, but I'm imagining to have a response about it might stop adults from wanting to work with children. And that's why I looked at amendment 246, which was making non reporting a criminal offence. This was recommended by IICSA and to provide for defences in situations where there's reasonable doubt concerning the grounds for suspicion, and there are criminal sanctions in many countries Australia, Croatia, Canada, France and most US states. But it has been a pleasure to work with the hon.

Member for North Cambridgeshire, Sam Carlin MP, on this issue, who wrote this brilliant amendment. 248 B he also has an adjournment debate tonight on this very topic, and I look forward to that. And I thank him for venturing down to our end of the building to sit and listen to this debate. I think both of us would prefer a criminal offence, but I am trying to be pragmatic. 248 B would be a new clause which would seek to ensure that civil sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the duty to report suspected child sex offences.

Sam Carlin has met the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithful Foundation and the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, who all want to see His Majesty's Government criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. He's also met with a number of other organisations. The NSPCC are deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the government as the only consequence of non-compliance are not enough. Well, not wanting sanctions that would lead to a criminal record. They very much want stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines.

Based on these conversations, Sam's amendment, which I've tabled, would be an amendment for how civil sanctions would work based on Home Office fine issuing powers in the immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The NSPCC have provided this, quote, the use of civil sanctions for failing to make a report under the mandatory duty is supported by the NSPCC. It is their belief that civil and professional sanctions strike the right balance between giving this duty the teeth it needs to ensure compliance, and also framing it as a tool meant to uplift and empower our child protection workforce and volunteers.

End quote. The NSPCC feels strongly that mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger for the two of the panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday urging her to change course on these issues. They're concerned that the only sanction proposed for the failure to report child sexual abuse under the duty in this bill is a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service, and I quote, this falls far below what was recommended.

Many of the organisations that the report criticised for failing to safeguard children from abuse, rely extensively on volunteers who are often not DBS, checked or regulated. End quote. They go on to say, and I quote DBS is already a requirement for regulated activity providers when it comes to those believed to pose a risk to children, and it is a criminal offence to fail to do so. We are therefore calling on the government to, at the very best, implement stronger civil sanctions for failure to comply with the duty.

End quote. To note the reported no evidence of the chilling effect that would discourage people from wanting to work with children simply isn't there. They go on to urge His Majesty's Government to strengthen the duty in this bill, in order to better deliver on the promises it has repeatedly made to implement IICSA the final point, my Lords, I would like to raise, and that is about amendment 262, which is not in my name, but is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton.

And if they seek to divide the House, I would very strongly support their
17:14
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker.
-

amendment.
17:14
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Proposed clause 77, page 104, >> Proposed clause 77, page 104, line 13. Leave out from first relevant to end of line 14 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert local authority. My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson that I missed the beginning of her speech on amendment 240. However, I've checked with the clerk and I believe it's in order that I speak to my amendments in this group. My Lords, since this is Report stage, I will not repeat the arguments I made on these and similar amendments at Committee stage. I'll describe what each of my four amendments does and pray in aid not only the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child sexual abuse, but I will also quote from a letter which members of the board of IICSA wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday last, having spent seven years hearing evidence about CSA and the reasons why it has been hidden and reporting in 2022, they were very disappointed when this bill was published, and even more disappointed when they heard the Minister's rejection of the measures in these amendments at Committee stage.

My amendment 246 A is similar to Baroness Grey-Thompson amendment 246, but it's a bit simpler. Both implemented part of recommendation 13 of the IICSA report. Both impose the same criminal sanction on designated reporters, failing to report CSA. But it is different in that. 246 A leaves it to the court to decide on the factors that might lead to a conviction. The court will always take into account what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.

When finding culpability. In their recent letter to the Home Secretary, the IICSA board members said, quote, we recommend a criminal sanction for designated reporters who fail to report abuse when it was disclosed or witnessed such a decision. For someone who who works with or has a position of trust over children is inexcusable, and sanctions need to reflect that, unquote. Amendment 248 widens the range of designated reporters to anyone in a position of trust in the relevant setting as defined already in statute, namely, sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Again, this implements part of recommendation 13 of IX's report. In their recent letter, the board members point out that the bill as it stands, has, quote, an insufficient definition of who should be a mandatory a mandated reporter, unquote. They go on to say, quote, our report did recommend that any person working in a position of trust, as defined by the amended Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be mandated as a designated reporter, unquote. And they point out that schedule ten of the bill contains significant gaps, especially in relation to sports coaches and religious leaders.

My Lords, it is almost as though the government has thought to itself, how little can we do? My amendment 248 A makes it a criminal offence for a designated reporter deliberately to conceal a child sexual offence of which they know or have reasonable suspicion, or try to hinder it being reported. The amendment leaves it to the court to decide on the level of culpability, and therefore the level of the sentence if convicted. Amendment 248 A is also clear about who should inform the disclosure and barring service of the conviction.

It should be the duty of the court and nobody else. That way there is no doubt that it will be done and not covered up. My amendment 262, which the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson has just kindly referred to, applies another part of recommendation 13 of the IICSA report. It extends the duty to report beyond those who witness child sexual abuse, or have it disclosed to them, but also to those who who recognise the indicators of sexual abuse and do nothing.

Some of these are defined in the amendment. My Lords, observing these signs is much more frequent than either having the child disclose the abuse, which is extremely rare, or actually witnessing the abuse, which is vanishingly rare. In their letter, the IICSA members criticise, quote, a narrow trigger for the duty that does not include reasonable suspicion and recognised indicators of abuse. Quote My Lords, as emphasised in their final report, relying on witnessing or receiving a disclosure is not enough because recognising these signs can be difficult and complicated.

IICSA did not recommend a criminal sanction for this failure, but they were very clear it should be done, my Lords. The letter ended with the following comment. Quote. Our report noted that multiple international jurisdictions with different judicial and cultural contexts have effective mandatory reporting laws, characterised by similar features to those set out in our recommendations. They continue as drafted. We are concerned that the duty and the crime and police bill falls short of what is needed to ensure that the mandatory reporting duty is as effective in uncovering and preventing child sexual abuse as it ought to be.

My Lords, having worked for decades on this issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson and others in this house, I think I've learned a good deal about it and how it works in other jurisdictions, in particular Australia. So I heartily agree with IICSA comments. Finally, may I just say a word about Lord Polak amendment in this group? I've added my name since I do agree with the principle. However, I am concerned about the drafting, which would take a judge several hours to explain to a jury and then they may not understand it.

I hope the government will accept the principle and come back at Third Reading with a simpler, more practical amendment. My Lords, in the meantime, I look forward to the Minister's response, in particular to amendment 262, which is widely supported by the children's organisations, and it really should. That change really should be made in this bill.
17:21
17:22
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. back her amendments and for the other noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments in this group. If I recall, this topic prompted one of the more robust debates we've had at Committee stage on this bill, and I am grateful for the chance to touch on the key points again at this group of amendments. My Lords, touches on the issue of child sexual exploitation, and whilst the previous groups focussed on creating specific offences for crimes against children, these amendments regard the failure to report sexual offences when they occur, as was our position at Committee stage.

My Lords, we are broadly supportive of the principles behind the noble Baroness amendments. I entirely understand her concern that criminal sanctions work both as an impetus for, and punishment for, not reporting child sexual abuse, and that the bill, as drafted currently does not underpin the duty within offence. I similarly see the logic in removing subsection six, which removes the duty if the individual in question believes another person will make a notification, and amendment 263, which removes the best interest defence.

I accept that this may be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye, which, if so, would render the new provision rather meaningless. But I also accept that there needs to be some leeway in reporting duties, and perhaps never Lords Minister can touch upon this when he speaks to amendment 266. Regrettably, I cannot accept the argument behind amendments 240 and 242. Whilst I accept that the duty of care here lies with the local authority, it is the police forces who are tasked with intervening and arresting those committing child sexual offences.

And there are undoubtedly cases where it would be necessary to contact police forces first. And I do not think that restricting reporting duties, restricting reporting to simply the local authority is wise. My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Pollock's amendments, particularly those to clause 84, amendment 257 underscores the importance of clear and delineated settings in which these new provisions would be applicable. Whilst I think this is important, however, I do not think it should be exhaustive.

CSA takes place in all walks of life, unfortunately, and confining, reporting it to category two categories risks removing the duty in other places. Amendment 264 in Lord. My noble friend Lord Polak name goes past the current drafting of the bill, which introduces an offence of preventing or deterring the reporting of child sexual abuse and creates a new offence of intentionally concealing a child sexual offence. And again, I support the intent behind these amendments and once again, I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, when he comes to his speech, will be sympathetic.

I also support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley's amendments. We should be guided by evidence which the IICSA report provided, which is why the last conservative government accepted its findings, a policy we still champion. My Lords, lastly, I turn to the Minister's Amendment 266. I do think that guidance is the correct and obvious next step. There are many nuances involved in this new provision, as we've heard throughout this debate, and I think that accompanying it with thorough guidance will allow for requirements to be more clearly outlined.

That being so sorry. That being said, I do hope that the noble Lords Minister will now confirm that the guidance will address the concerns raised today, specifically around exceptions to reporting requirements. In particular, I think that would benefit from further guidance from the Secretary of State. Once again, can I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I look forward to the Minister's remarks. forward to the Minister's remarks.
17:26
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful again to those who tabled amendments today. Can I just start by saying the noble Baroness Brinton was absolutely right? There was ministerial tutting on this front bench when the noble Baroness, Lady Walls me, said, and I quote, the government is looking at how little can we do? Well, let me just refer the noble Baroness Walmsley for her interests to the document we produced on the 9th of April, 2025, which I've just looked up online now, which has 87 paragraphs of action in response to the Alexis J.

Report across government about what the government is going to do on this. And let me refer to paragraphs, clauses 77 to 86 of this bill, which bring forward amendments that the previous government and I do not wish to make a party political point on this, but it's just a point to make and register that the Alexis J. Report was produced in October 2022, and this government has brought not just these clauses before the House today, but on the 9th of April, 2025, produced an 87 paragraph pointed response to the legislation.

So it isn't how little can we do it is how much we can do from a standing start from July the 4th,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2025. E-SIM has taken offence at my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

E-SIM has taken offence at my comments and I do accept that this government has brought legislation forward and taken a number of forward and taken a number of actions, but I'm very much influenced by the disappointment of the IICSA board members and it, as my noble friend Baroness Brinton said, it is very unusual that said, it is very unusual that people like them should write in the terms that they have to the Home Secretary, and it is those particular sections of their report they are very disappointed about, and so am I.

But I'm very sorry if the Minister was upset and offended by my comments. I never intend that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm grateful for the noble Baroness Cass comments. I'm not upset or offended, I just want to upset or offended, I just want to put the record straight that we are about trying to deal with this about trying to deal with this issue. Having had an office now of just under, what, 20 months? This bill was produced some time ago, we've put in the bill a response which actually meets most of the which actually meets most of the recommendations to date.

And we've produced a report on the 9th of April last year which set out the direction of travel. And therefore I'm not upset personally about that. I just want to put it on the record. And I think that the the noble Lady can't say, how little can we do when actually what we're trying to do is as much as we possibly can do. Now, I just say to you, in relation to the letter, which I've heard comment to, the letter was sent on Friday.

A letter has gone to the Home Office. I haven't seen the letter myself personally yet. The noble Lady may have a copy of it. I'm sure she'll pass it to me in due course, but I haven't seen that letter yet. I can also see the Baroness Grey-Thompson itching to give me the letter, but I will say to her and to the Baroness Grey-Thompson that we will respond to the letter in due course, and the Home Secretary will assess the letter and its contents, and we'll we'll do that.

Can I begin just with a few government amendments in this group, which all relate to the duty to report child sexual abuse. The duty applies to those in regulated activities, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and those who are engaged in an activity specified in part two of schedule ten. A number of these latter activities are based on legislative references, which include a qualifier of the activity being unsupervised. As clause 119 of the bill removes this qualifier for the purposes of regulated activity.

The amendments in my name are 252253254256258259, and 260. Ensure that schedule ten is consistent with this change. The amendment in my name of 261 is a technical amendment to give greater clarity by defining the meaning of regular contact for the purposes of the activities less than in part two of the schedule, and the amendment 266 empowers the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance, which we believe is the most effective way to provide clarity and consistency, and particularly given the failures to report, will be referred to the Disclosure and Barring Service and to professional regulators.

The guidance will ensure that individuals cannot reasonably claim ambiguity or lack of clarity about what the duty is required of them. Now I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Grey Thompson and Lady Walls Walmsley and the noble Lord Polak for their amendments. Amendments two four, 5247248 and 257 seek to extend the duty to a number of additional contexts. These amendments would significantly expand the scope of the justified and proportionate measure the government has set out, namely, to place a clear requirement on those most likely to encounter information relating to child sexual abuse, including individuals who do not have a direct contact with children would create additional procedural complexity and could encourage defensive practices.

The amendment two four, eight, in the name of Baroness Walmsley, seeks to import the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Definition of positions of trust. Inverted commas. However, that definition is designed for specific interpersonal relationships and is not well suited to the defining reporters. Instead, schedule ten lists those activities involving positions of trust which are not adequately captured by the definition of regulated activity, and we have included a number of regulation making powers to amend this list when necessary. The bulk of the noble Baroness Gray Thompson's comments fell on the amendments 246246A and 248B, and I'm both grateful to her and to the noble Baroness Walmsley and indeed to my colleague Sam Cowling MP, who I note, is taking a keen interest in these proceedings as we as we discuss them and those amendments seek to introduce a criminal offence or criminal sanctions, a civil sanctions.

Sorry for those who failed to report abuse. Now the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson anticipated the arguments I would put to her in her contribution in the debate, and therefore I'm not going to disappoint her by not anticipating that argument here today, because the argument I put to her is that introducing a criminal or indeed civil sanction for failure to report risks creating a climate of fear rather than confidence among those with reporting responsibilities, the government has focussed the criminal sanctions in this bill on those who obstruct or interfere with reporters.

And as we discussed in committee, this approach, we believe and I'm happy to have the discussion with the noble Baroness. But we believe this approach has broad support from experts in the child protection sector, and we're doing that for the reason not to discourage people from coming forward. But my noble friend, Baroness Gowdy did not refer to their amendments. But I'm very happy to say that I understand my noble friend's desire to avoid duplicative reporting duties, and I can assure her this will not be the case.

We've re-examined the drafting following the debate and are satisfied the current drafting does not imply a duplication. There is an amendment on 262, which again in the name of Lady Walmsley, which looks at thresholds for reporting and seeks to widen the duty to include the observation of suspicious behaviour or potential indicators of abuse. Now, I think it's a well-intentioned positive amendment, but I say to her again that such indicators are complex, subjective and particularly for the many non-experts in scope.

And the bill itself is designed to focus on clear triggers where a reporter has an. Well, let me just finish this sentence, if I may, and then I will certainly take interventions from all sides if necessary. So while intentions, such indicators can be complex and subjective, and the bill focuses on clear triggers where a reporter has an unambiguous reason to believe that they are in receipt of an allegation of child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sexual abuse. The Minister did earlier, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister did earlier, I believe, give a commitment to read the letter. I've not seen the the letter. I've not seen the letter from. Though. Unlike anyone from the Home Office, I was one of from the Home Office, I was one of the two MPs who did attend the inquiry. In fact, I represented inquiry. In fact, I represented people for 30 days at the inquiry. And so if there are recommendations from those who spent many hundreds of days with the experts in the detail of the inquiry, can I take it that the Minister and the ministerial team will both read and give consideration to the implications in relation to any amendments or similar amendments to the legislation that might come from the the logic and the conclusions that even the specificity of what IICSA is proposing.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I've said to those members, hon. Members who have raised the hon. Members who have raised the issue, we will look at the letter from the IICSA members. We will respond to the letter from the respond to the letter from the members. But I haven't seen it, and I haven't got it in front of me, and I'm not going to respond to it and I'm not going to respond to it today, even if it was passed to me, because I have to take some collective discussion with colleagues about the points that I colleagues about the points that I raised.

But I just say to my noble friend that what the government has tried to do since July the 4th, 2025, and again, I pray in a statement if he hasn't looked at it of the 9th of April, 2025, is to meet the objectives of IICSA as far as we can, and we have met an awful lot of the objectives that have been set and there before the House in legislation here today. Did the noble Lady know? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel very sorry. I apologise that you haven't seen the letter. If I realised you hadn't have had it, I would have made sure that you it, I would have made sure that you hadn't. I absolutely recognise it's very difficult for you to respond to a letter that you haven't seen. to a letter that you haven't seen. But would the noble Lord, the Minister, make a commitment that the Dispatch Box that if I withdraw the Dispatch Box that if I withdraw certainly to for eight, be that we would be able to have a discussion, I would be able to bring the amendment back at Third Reading, if we aren't able to find a suitable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

route through. I always try and be helpful if I can. I don't want to have amendments to the bill at Third Reading, and therefore I can't help Reading, and therefore I can't help the noble Lady with that request. But what I can do, and I say I But what I can do, and I say I haven't seen the letter. The letter is in the aether of the Home Office system. It is arrived, it will be acknowledged, it will be responded acknowledged, it will be responded to.

But it only was issued on Friday. I think the noble Lady mentioned. So to be fair to the Home Office, that is, you know, an issue we'll have to look at. But what I will say is that obviously we will respond to that letter. I'll make sure both the noble Baroness Walmsley and the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson have the response, if appropriate, because they've raised it today. And I'll check with IICSA IICSA that they're happy to do so. But I think that's important. But I but I say essentially that the further amendments that we've got in the name of Lord Polak and the noble Lady Grey Thompson, amendment 2488, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley also seek to supplement or remove the criminal offence of preventing a reporter from carrying out their duty.

Amendments 264 and 248 provide for proposed thresholds. Sorry issues that again, I can't accept the proposed thresholds when a person suspects abuse is taking place, even if that suspicion is poorly founded, the alleged offence never occurred or the relevant concealment actions had no actual effect are far broader and harder to justify or prosecute than interference with a well known statutory duty. The government's preferred model for this type of offence is narrowly targeted, purpose driven and clearly aligned. And again, amendment 265, in the name of the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson on protection for reporters, the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 already provides a legal framework for protecting child abuse whistleblowers from dismissal, victimisation or other workplace detriments.

Attempting to legislate against, for example, social shielding, reputational harm or informal exclusion would pose significant legal and practical problems. So I actually think, and the House may disagree with this, that's a matter for the House to to take a view on. I actually think this government has progressed the recommendations on IICSA in a significant way since July the 4th, 2024. Since we took office, there was a significant gap beforehand of inactivity for a range of reasons that I'm not going to discuss and talk about today, but we have put potential measures on the face of this bill, and we have undertaken through a range of other measures which are referred to earlier, a significant amount of progress on these issues.

There may be issues that are still being pressed on. I accept that, but I think that the progress that's been made is significant. And I would therefore ask the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson to withdraw her amendment and invite the government to the House to support the government's amendments. I moved earlier.
17:41
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
I'd like to thank everyone who's taken part in this short debate this afternoon. I'm very glad that the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley was able to speak. She's worked extensively in this area for decades, and I've learnt heavily on her expertise. But I think the noble Lady Baroness Brinton makes the strongest point in the unusual nature that a board has written to the Home Secretary. And as I previously said, you know, I'm very sorry that the noble Lord, the Minister, hasn't been able to see that.

But I am going to quote from page one of the letter, paragraph two, where it said, we're deeply concerned that the mandatory reporting duty is currently drafted in. The Crime and Policing Bill does not fully reflect our recommendation. In particular, there is a lack of appropriate sanction for failure to report and insufficient definition of who should be a mandated reporter and a narrow trigger for the duty that does not include reasonable suspicion and recognised indicators of abuse. My Lords, I think I would go with the opinion of Samalqan Evans and Ivor Frank.

And as much as this government has moved things on, I don't think it has moved things on far enough. So while I'm happy to withdraw my amendments to 4246 at the time that it's called, I will be seeking to divide the House on 248 B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships amendment 240 be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments two four 1 to withdrawn. Amendments two four 1 to 2 four six Baroness Grey-Thompson not moved. Amendment 246A Baroness not moved. Amendment 246A Baroness Walmsley not moved. Amendment 247 Baroness Grey-Thompson not moved Baroness Grey-Thompson not moved 248 Baroness Walmsley not moved 248 Baroness Walmsley not moved 248A Baroness Walmsley not moved. Amendment 248B Baroness Grey-Thompson. House amendment 248B be agreed, as many of that opinion will say.

Content the contrary not content. The question will be decided by division. I will notify decided by division. I will notify
17:43
None Portrait DIVISION
-

the House when voting is open. the House when voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 248 B be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content as many opinion will say, content as many of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The question will be decided by question will be decided by division. Contents will go to the right by the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. So. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. My Lords. There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. There have My Lords. There have voted contents 71, not contents 177. So contents 71, not contents 177. So the not contents have it. Government amendments 249 and 250 moved formally. The question is these amendments be agreed as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content the contents habit. Government amendments 251 to 254 move formally move formally, the question is these amendments be agreed as many of that opinion will say content contrary, not content, the contents have it.

Amendment 255 Baroness Goldie not moved. Government amendment 256 moved formally. Question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that opinion will say content contrary not content The contents have it amendment 257 Lord Polak not moved. Government amendments two five 8 to 2 six one move formally En bloc. The question is these amendments be agreed to as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 262 Baroness Walmsley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In light of the unusual nature of the letter from two members of of the letter from two members of the board of IICSA to the Home Secretary, I would like to test the Secretary, I would like to test the opinion of the House, although I do acknowledge that when this government came in, it did say it government came in, it did say it would agree to and try and implement all of the recommendations of IICSA. And it's recommendations of IICSA.

And it's done a great deal, but I'm afraid it hasn't done it on mandatory reporting. And that is why to show support for the amazing work done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the whole of the board, I would like to test the opinion of the House. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. 262 be agreed to as many that opinion will say content to To the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. I think the not contents have it. The question will be decided by a division. I will notify the House division. I will notify the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Order the Order the amendment Order the amendment 262 Order the amendment 262 be agreed to as many of that opinion. The question is that amendment 262

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 262 be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the left by the bath. Yes. Yes. I Yes. I want Yes. I want you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Thank Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lord. My Lord. I My Lord. I have My Lord. I have voted My Lord. I have voted content My Lord. I have voted content 61,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I have voted content 61, not contents 178. So the not My My Lords My Lords includes 84 amendment 263 Baroness Grey-Thompson not moved. Not moved. Amendment 264 Lord Polak not moved. Amendment 265 Baroness Grey-Thompson not moved. Amendments 266 to 269 Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it in clause 87, amendment 270 Baroness Levitt my Lords Government
18:07
18:08
None Portrait Amendment: 270 Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

Inquiry into Child Sexual abuse. My Lords, the reason this is needed is that many victims and survivors are that many victims and survivors are not able to talk about, or even think about the abuse they suffered until many years afterwards, and until many years afterwards, and that is a direct consequence of the abuse itself. So clause 87 inserts abuse itself. So clause 87 inserts a new section one one ZB into the Limitation Act 1980, because it's the Limitation Act which makes the Limitation Act which makes provision for the dismissal of actions which are outside the time limit for personal injury claims.

Under the new section one one ZB two, if an action is being brought outside the usual three year limitation period in order for it to be dismissed, it is for the defendant to satisfy the court that a fair hearing cannot take place, but under the current drafting of one one ZB Subclause three, the section may. The action may also be dismissed if the defendant demonstrates that allowing the action to proceed would cause them substantial prejudice. My Lords, we have listened carefully to the testimony of victims and survivors and reflected on the amendments debated in committee, all of which raised concerns about the substantial prejudice test.

And we decided that they were right. The retention of section one one ZB to alone both implements the relevant IICSA recommendation and ensures that those accused of child sexual abuse maintain their right to a fair hearing. I am therefore pleased to say that amendment 270 removes new section one one ZB three from clause 87. Many have spoken about this and I pay tribute to them all, but I would like to make special mention of the noble Lady Baroness Royall and to Mr.

Stephen Bernard. They brought this to our attention swiftly, and Mr. Bernard spoke to me most movingly about his own experiences. I thank him for this. He played a big part in ensuring that the government has reached this decision, and I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 87, page 101 111. Leave out lines 31 to 39.
18:10
18:11
18:11
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord. >> I apologise for being a little late into the chamber. Things moved much more rapidly than I think any much more rapidly than I think any of us anticipated, but I had spoken about this issue at Second Reading at at some length. I fear, in setting out what I thought were the difficulties legally in this area. Also at Committee stage, in which I invited the government to give their response to the various submissions that I made, which were effectively that the law, as it existed, did provide sufficient safeguards so that claimants could bring their claims much later than the three year limitation period that applies to a personal injuries claim, provided they satisfied the various criteria set out in section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 I.

Agree with the noble Lady, the Minister, that the clauses originally drafted ran the risk of perhaps generating further litigation, and I declare my interest to having been involved in a great deal of litigation over the years that I thought would be a mistake. I'm glad that substantial prejudice provision has been removed from the section, because I think that gives some welcome clarity and should minimise the risk of there being further unnecessary litigation where the precise meaning of the provisions is probed inevitably by one side or another.

This isn't quite where I would have liked the law to be, because I think the law is satisfactory as it is, but I don't think that I or anybody else concerned in this area would differ with the general aim, which is, of course, to make sure that those who, for very good reasons, have delayed bringing a claims are sufficiently protected by the law and can invite the courts to take into account their delay. The risk that I was concerned about, which was averted to in the well-known case of A versus Hall, was the real risk that it would be impossible for there to be a fair trial in certain circumstances because of the lapse of time, witnesses have disappeared, documents have gone missing, and all the other factors that can make it impossible for a fair trial to take place.

Although this isn't quite the result I would have preferred. I think, I think, and I look forward to the Minister's reassurance that the the position that the government has now aimed will preserve those twin aims, that is to say, to preserve a claimant's right to bring claims, albeit late, if there is a good reason, but also to protect a defendant if, because of the lapse of time, it is impossible for there to be a fair trial. I hope she can reassure me that she thinks that this definition will preserve the observations made by the by the House of Lords in a V Hall, that there does come a time when it is simply too late to have a fair trial.

And a fair trial, of course, would concern a defendant who probably wasn't in any way responsible for the perpetration of any sexual abuse. But because of the operation of the doctrine of vicarious liability, was deemed to be responsible, i.e. a school or other institution, because I don't think anybody has any sympathy for the actual perpetrators. However late a claim may be brought. So that is my observation. It's not wholly a satisfactory situation, but I'm grateful for the government, at least, to removing some of the ambiguity that I thought was in the original way that the clause was framed.
18:15
18:16
18:17
None Portrait Amendment: 271 Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

on intimate image abuse, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to say that over the course of the passage of this Bill in your Lordships House, I have had a number of extremely helpful conversations on the subject of pornography, child sexual abuse images and misogyny, and a lot of images and misogyny, and a lot of other subjects which, whilst often distasteful, are really important in the fight against violence in the fight against violence against women and girls. We will cover some of those issues in this group, some in subsequent groups, but I want to say in relation to all of them, how grateful I am to those members of your Lordships House who have taken the time to speak to me and to work with me in the context of this group, I want to pay tribute to the noble Ladies.

Baroness Owen, Baroness Kidron, Baroness Brinton and Baroness Doocey, and the noble Lords Lord Pannick and Lord Clement-Jones. My Lords, a substantial part of my career as a lawyer has been spent in the fight against violence against women and children, not just girls, and I thought that I was pretty knowledgeable about this in the context of the criminal law. But I am more than happy to acknowledge that I have learnt a great deal from those to whom I have spoken in the context of this Bill, and in this context, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Mone.

On a number of occasions I have changed my mind as a result of speaking to them, and I have no doubt that this is a better bill as a result. And so I thank them as a result of what has been said in the debates and in other conversations, the government has tabled a collection of amendments that, taken together, create a package of further changes which strengthen the overall intimate image abuse regime already contained within this bill. My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will agree that they show the government listening and acting.

I have already mentioned the noble Lady Baroness O'Loan of Alderley Edge, but I also want to thank Professor Clare McGlynn. She and professor McGlynn have both worked hard to keep these issues at the top of the agenda, and these amendments are also a tribute to the vital work of organisations like the Revenge Porn Helpline and Refuge, and of course, the victims and survivors themselves, who have taken the courageous and important step of reporting online abuse and raising awareness. I have already said that I am proud of these amendments, but I am aware that for some they do not go far enough.

And I would ask two things of those who will speak to their amendments today to accept that we are all on the same side about the harm that we are trying to prevent, and that I am truly committed to trying to get this right. So when I say that I cannot accede to something, there is a good reason for it, and I am not refusing to accept amendments or partisan reasons or simply out of stubbornness. My Lords, this landscape changes fast, and usually not for the better.

But there is a reason that we sometimes urge caution before creating new criminal offences and penalties. There can be real dangers in making piecemeal changes. As soon as we are confronted by some new horrifying behaviour causing harm to so many victims, and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that we do not legislate in haste and then come to regret it. So if, in relation to some of these proposals, I ask that the government is given time to gather more evidence, and then consider the best way of going about preventing such behaviour, I ask your Lordships to accept that this comes from a good place, namely wanting to make sure that any laws we pass capture the crimes we have in mind, but do not have unanticipated consequences.

And so I turn to semen defaced images. This is not a pleasant thing to discuss in polite society, but I need to make it clear what is meant by this, what the harm is, and what we are doing in relation to it. What is meant by semen? Defaced images are images of semen deposited onto another image, often a photograph and usually a photograph of a woman. It's disgraceful behaviour. It's designed to degrade and humiliate the woman in the picture.

And we can't tolerate this misogynistic behaviour in a civilised society. The noble Lady Baroness O'Loan persuaded me that this was something that we should make a criminal offence, and so we have done so, and that is why the government is bringing forward amendments 271278279, 290 and 292 today. Together they introduce a new offence of sharing a semen defaced image of another person without consent. My Lords, this is the first step in stamping out this type of behaviour for good. But it is not the end.

We are determined to tackle violence against women and girls in all its forms, and we want to ensure that the criminal law gets ahead of emerging harms. And that is why we have announced in the Vawg strategy that we are launching a call for evidence. Better to understand online misogynistic, image based abuse and the extent to which there are new harms and behaviour which may not be fully captured by existing criminal offences. I turn now to the issue of screenshotting again, as raised by the noble Lady Baroness Mone of Alderley Edge at Second Reading and at Committee stage.

Intimate images are personal and they are private. Consenting adults are, of course, free to share them, and may do so in ways that are permanent or temporary. But a person's right to share their image temporarily in private must be respected, and if there is violation of that right, then it must be addressed. Government amendments 2812 8228 3285 2862 87288291293294 and 295 taken together, make it a criminal offence. Non-consensually to take a screenshot of or copy in any way an intimate image that the victim has shared only temporarily.

This offence sits alongside and mirrors wherever relevant. The other intimate image image offences, and it sends a clear message to those who engage in this non-consensual behaviour that it is unacceptable and it will be punished. I briefly turn now to the subject of takedown. I know that amendment 275, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Owen, will be debated later on today and in a separate group. But I would like to take a moment to nod to to mention the announcement made by the Prime Minister on the 19th of February.

We will be bringing forward government amendments at Third Reading in response to amendment 275, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness O'Loan. And that is to ensure that tech companies are legally required to have measures to take down reported non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours in order to ensure that victims get rapid protection. I feel it is important to refer to this now to demonstrate the government's action in this space as a whole, where we have been able to, we have moved, and I do hope your Lordships will bear that in mind as we progress through this debate.

I am also pleased to say that amendments 296 and 456 designate new offences in the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 to criminalise creating and requesting purported deepfake non-consensual intimate images as priority offences under the Online Safety Act. As many of your Lordships will know, this means that platforms will face the stronger duties that apply to the most serious illegal content they will be required to assess, specifically the risks of the service being used to facilitate this offence. To mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used to commit the offence.

To take proactive steps to prevent users encountering such content, and to minimise the time that such content is present on their platform. There has been understandable public concern over the creation and dissemination of non-consensual sexual deepfakes on X, and the government has been clear that no woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated. These amendments help put that principle into practice. Finally, amendment 405 makes a small, minor and technical change in respect of the taking and installing offences in this bill, and I can provide further details if any of your Lordships would like it.

Apart from that, I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 89, page 113, line 13 after two insert semen defaced images.
18:26
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to >> My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 273274275276284296A in amendments 273274275276284296A in my name and the names of the noble Lords Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Pannick, Viscount Colville and Lady Kidron. In doing so, I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image based sexual abuse. I will also speak to government amendments 278281 and 296. I also want to place on record my support for amendment 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie.

Firstly, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her determination to make progress on this issue. We have made huge strides since Committee stage and I am very grateful. I would also like to thank the survivors and campaigners who have fought for so long for these changes. Turning to amendment 273, which ensures that abusers who are convicted of an intimate image abuse offence, the court must order the destruction of any content used to commit the offence on any device or data store containing it, and that prosecutors lodge a deletion verification report within 28 days.

Whilst I acknowledge that the government has updated the law to clarify that this content should be seen as being used to commit the offence under section 153 of the 2020 Sentencing Act. This does not offer victims any guarantee of the total destruction of the content used to commit the crime. One survivor, Daria, whose convicted abuser was allowed to keep the content of her, said the weapons with which he caused life shattering harm remain in his arsenal despite the severity of the crimes, as reflected in the sentences handed down by the Crown Court.

I remain at his mercy with regard to whether he chooses to violate me again in the same way, and Daria is not alone in her experience. Shanti Das, a journalist who undertook research on this and published in February 2025, found that of the 98 image based abuse offences prosecuted in magistrates courts in England and Wales in the preceding six months, only three resulted in deprivation orders. It is quite simply appalling. Survivors of this abuse deserve better. On this amendment I will test the opinion of the House.

I turn now to amendments 274 and 276, which mandate the Secretary of State bring forward regulations to create a centralised statutory hash registry and mandate hash sharing. The Revenge Porn helpline currently run the voluntary register called stop NCI, and have confirmed that they would be willing to run the centralised registry. The Revenge Porn Helpline does incredible work supporting victims of intimate image abuse and has a 90% success rate on removal of content. However, 10% of the content is on non-compliant sites.

The amendment seeks to tackle non-compliance by allowing the Revenge Porn Helpline to coordinate with internet service providers to mandate the blocking of verified NCA content in cases of non-compliance, thus avoiding the long and bureaucratic process of obtaining business disruption measures under Ofcom that are of little comfort to victims whose image remains online. One victim, Jane, stated the platform slow and inconsistent enforcement left me feeling trapped in a relentless cycle where the harm snowballed with every hour. The abusive content stayed up, constantly monitoring the internet, reporting the same material and watching it reappear has taken a huge mental toll.

Ofcom have already confirmed that these amendments do not conflict with the hashing measures that they are bringing forward. It is important to emphasise that Ofcom do not take a policy position. Ofcom have, however, confirmed that the Register could be incorporated into their hashing measure by requiring services to include the registry hashes in any database they use. The policy Ofcom is bringing forward is very welcome, but it is not comprehensive enough to fully protect victims and risk victims once again being left to chase their abuse across the internet, which directly contradicts the Prime Minister's promise that victims would have a one and done system.

Ofcom's recommendations are based on risk profile of internet services, with medium and high risk services having the option to use a third party database, such as stop NCI. NCI or internal hash database. They also have the flexibility to use different means of achieving the same outcome. Only porn services and file sharing platforms have to use a third party database, such as stop NCI Hash Registry. The other services, such as services with more than 700,000 users, will have the option and may choose to operate their own internal database.

Ofcom cannot mandate the use of the same hash registry. It does not have the power. Parliament does have that power. Ofcom cannot mandate an internal hash database where hashes are shared between each other. Parliament can make mandate that when internet services choose not to comply, Ofcom cannot block individual pieces of content at ISP level. This is what my amendments achieve. ISPs themselves are not permitted to block content that is not illegal under net neutrality rules. And this is not illegal content in and of itself.

Ofcom have said. We expect sites to want to partner with stop NCI, in which case all hashes will work in one location. However, in theory, a platform could choose to operate its own database. Platforms should add new content they detect to a hash database, and that could include hashes from a third party database. This simply means that theoretically, content could be hashed on one platform, but not on another. Ofcom have confirmed this by saying our hashing measure does not expressly mandate a single line of reporting for victims, but it does mean that survivors and victims will be able to report content to all services in scope of the measure, who must then remove it and prevent re-upload.

We expect that many sites will choose to use the third party database and share hashes, even though this is not explicitly required. Expect. Should could. My Lords, this quite simply means that the government is relying on the goodwill of tech companies to opt to choose third party hashing and to want to share these hashes to prevent re-upload on other platforms. Sophie Mortimer, head of the support service at the Revenge Porn Helpline, emphasised that the handful of responsible and responsive platforms should not be the yardstick for all when the vast majority are painfully slow to respond or entirely non-compliant.

The absence of a statutory centralised hash registry sitting above the database databases with powers to work with internet service providers and hash sharing, means that this government cannot fulfil the promise that the Prime Minister made to victims, ending the whack a mole situation where they have to chase their abuse around the internet. The Prime Minister's words on national television were one and done. Once it has been identified, once it has got to come down on all platforms for the future so that someone who is a victim of this and there are very many doesn't have to do a sort of whack a mole chasing whatever the image is next going up, it has to be taken down for good from all platforms.

It's a really important step forward. I agree with the Prime Minister. However, Ofcom's measures advocated by the government are not a one and done system. It's a once on each platform as per their decision about which system they adopt and whether they voluntarily choose to share their hashes, and it will be left again for the victims to chase this abuse around the internet, directly undermining the promise the Prime Minister made to them to end this deeply traumatic whack a mole situation.

In some instances, women have achieved successful prosecution that perpetrators given prison sentences. Yet appallingly, these images still remain online. To highlight just how serious this really is, those impacted often describe the trauma and helplessness as driving them to the brink of suicide. My Lords, we cannot rely on the goodwill of internet services to tackle this, or for the government to undertake yet another review. We must finally offer comprehensive protections to those whose intimate images have been shared without their consent, to allow them to reclaim their lives and stop them living in fear.

I turn now to amendment 284, tackling the abusive practice of semen images where men are covering women's images and semen, whether AI or real, and sharing them online. I am very grateful to the government for the constructive way they have worked with me on this, particularly Minister Davies Jones. I am very pleased with amendment 278 that the government has brought forward. However, I am keen for the purposes of the parliamentary record that the noble Baroness, the Minister, addresses the confusion that seems to be taking place when women are reporting this to police.

One victim and the inspirational campaigner, Jess Davies this January went to the police with an image that had been created and shared of her. The perpetrator had edited her image so her tongue was sticking out and placed white liquid in her mouth to emulate semen. She said when I spoke to the police, they told me that they could not investigate as the image was not covered in the law, even though the person had created and distributed it himself. I would be very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, if she could confirm that in scenarios such as this one, where there is a person with semen on their face, that the rest of their body is not exposed where the real or AI.

That this does not fall. That this does fall into the definition of intimate state in section 66 B of the Sexual Offences Act. Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether she will be having conversations with the CPS to ensure that this gap in understanding is being tackled. My amendment 296 A amends the government's amendment 296, which makes creating and requesting intimate images priority offence in the Online Safety Act to also include semen defaced images. It is also that it is also treated as a priority offence too.

Finally, I turn to amendment 281, which the government has brought forward in response to my own amendment on Screenshotting, which I have now withdrawn. I am once again grateful for the constructive way in which they have worked with me on this. To tackle the issue of nonconsensual screenshotting. My Lords, for too long women have had to chase their own abuse across the internet, never free to move on with their lives, always living in the constant shadow that it will reappear. I urge noble Lords to please vote with me and allow these victims to reclaim their lives once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and for all. My Lords. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise. To speak to amendment 277, which would create a specific criminal offence, secretly filming someone without their consent for sexual gratification or in order to gratification or in order to humiliate or distress them. In addition, it would make profiting from such footage a serious
18:38
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
from such footage a serious aggravating factor for sentencing, bringing clarity to a legal grey area and aligning the law with the reality of abuse and the digital age. This amendment follows a BBC investigation which exposed the widespread practice of men covertly filming women on nights out and then monetising the footage on online platforms. The BBC identified over 65 channels across YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram, posting this content. The material is being filmed in major cities worldwide, including London and Manchester is a hot spot.

With creators travelling from abroad specifically to capture surreptitious, low angle shots of fully clothed women in dresses and skirts as they walk along the street. These are then uploaded as so-called walking tours or nightlife content. These posts have racked up more than 3 billion views in the last three years, with a single video generating up to £5,000 in revenue from ads and sponsorship. My Lords, women and girls deserve to move freely in public without fearing their bodies will be splashed across the internet without their consent.

The problem is that existing voyeurism offences turn on narrow definitions of nudity and privacy. We welcome the bill's focus on non-consensual image, intimate image abuse and support the government's amendments and those brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. However, these are confined to images of subjects in an intimate state. Fully clothed people generally fall outside this definition, even when filmed for sexual kicks. Amendment 277 instead focuses on the degrading and predatory intent, which is where much of the harm lies.

It centres on the victim's humiliation and objectification, rather than narrow definitions of body parts, clothing or location. It follows Law Commission advice to expand voyeurism legislation to non-private settings based on intent, and this amendment is carefully targeted at those with malign motivations. In 2024, Greater Manchester Police made an arrest for this practice. However, no further action could be taken due to what the force described as limitations in current legislation. Harassment and stalking laws fail because they require a proven course of conduct.

My Lords, abusers know this behaviour is not currently captured by law and are exploiting this loophole without action. Predators will continue to see this as a risk free way of making easy money. My colleague Vera Hobhouse MP, has tabled a private member's bill on this issue and I echo her calls to compel platforms to remove such content. My Lords, the Angiolini inquiry recently warned that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are still not sufficiently prioritised. That is why I urge the Minister to give my amendment the serious consideration it deserves.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We need concrete action, not more rhetoric. Yes. My Lords, this group covers a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this group covers a whole range of human conduct, from the objectionable to the disgusting. the objectionable to the disgusting. Can I thank the Minister for bringing forward a whole series of amendments which are going to benefit women and society at large? And can I particularly thank Baroness Owen for all the work that she's done, which has led us to this position and the amendments she's put forward. I'm sure the whole House is very grateful to her. Can I speak specifically and very briefly to Baroness Owen's Amendment 273, to which I added my name, and I do so because I understand Baroness Erin May, if the Minister won't accept the amendment, may wish to test the opinion of the House.

And what this amendment does is very simple. It imposes a duty on a court to make a deprivation and deletion order, where a person is convicted of an
18:43
18:44
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I also rise to support, >> My Lords, I also rise to support, in fact, all the amendments in this group government amendments, those in the name of noble Lady Owen and indeed the other amendment that was put forward, it was such an excellent speech done in such detail. I don't really want to go over the specifics, except to say you are our leader and we will follow you through the lobby. However, I do really just want to make one point.

And it was it was that fantastic list of the gap between what Ofcom can do and what Parliament can do. And I really think that we should just hesitate on that thought and say, you know, I've had a chance to have a look at the government's consultation this afternoon a little bit. There is almost nothing about what Ofcom can't do. There's almost nothing about enforcement. And there is, as I explained earlier, nothing about risk assessment. So it's what happens before to prevent all of this and what happens once it's all happened and we start to get enforcement.

We can't keep playing around in the middle. We have to go to the beginning upstream, and we have to come to the end and get these things absolutely, categorically dealt with in a way that interferes with business and makes it unacceptable to do it. So with that point, I just really want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to say I will be supporting you. My noble Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble Lords. I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend, Baroness Owen of noble friend, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, for the tenacity and expertise she has brought to this issue. I also want to acknowledge issue. I also want to acknowledge how far the government has moved in response to her work, and to thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her and her department's work on
18:46
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson Portrait Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)
-
-
her and her department's work on this issue and willingness to listen. We now have a large number of government amendments to address concerns across takedown, screenshotting and semen issues. There has been huge progress, however, I would like to support all my noble friend's amendments and to speak very, very briefly to two. Amendment 273, as we've heard, is needed to ensure that those who perpetrate intimate image abuse are not allowed to keep the images. As it stands, it's extraordinary that perpetrators can leave court with intimate images of their victims still in their possession, in something that cannot be allowed to continue, and I hope that noble Lords from across the whole House will support my noble friend if we do indeed need a division on it.

On the takedown service, I want to gently press the government, as my noble friend has set out on how their approach will deliver the protection for victims. That these amendments that she has put down. 274276 would do. The Prime Minister promised the public one and done. As we have heard, once an abusive image is identified, it should come down from all platforms permanently. That is the right promise. However, as my noble friend has set out, it's not clear that the government's proposal, in fact, will deliver on that promise without a centralised, comprehensive register.

I don't see how it can be delivered, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on this point. My Lords, the government's amendments reflect genuine and welcome progress on these issues, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to take the final steps needed today.
18:47
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Briefly. like others, I pay tribute to her for her tenacity and for the way in which she has consistently spoken up for the victims. I will speak briefly about amendments 273 and amendment 274. I thought the noble Lord Lord Pannick, in his usual, usual reassuringly expensive way, managed to manage to manage to pinpoint what this amendment is about, which is effectively to give courts a an undertaking that they have a duty that the images that somebody has been convicted for taking and for disseminating are destroyed.

That seems unarguable. And I do hope that the noble Lady of the Minister, with all of her experience, will be able to demonstrate why that should not be the case, because I think for almost everybody in the chamber, it seems a no brainer when it comes to amendment 274, we are revisiting some of the discussions that we had in committee and in report during the passage of the Online Safety Act, and that is the difficulty that victims have in being effectively left to their own devices, dealing with platform by platform, because each platform deals or doesn't deal with complaints in a different way.

And to have the indignity of having had something unmentionable done to you, and then to which could, of course, happen on more than one platform, and then to have to individually pursue each platform and find each platform has a different way of dealing with it. And different hoops to go through seems to be piling injury upon insult. And we did argue as well as we could during the passage of the act, that there should be much more thought given to making the experience of victims as they try to confront what has happened to them and try and bring the organisations that have inflicted it upon them, or have enabled it to, you know, to brook the way in which it has currently emerged from the act and the way in which victims are still experiencing this huge variability and inconsistency is clearly an injustice.

And I do hope the government will recognise that. And even if they're not ready and able to do something about it this evening, I think an undertaking that they will look at this very carefully and come back with something that the noble Baroness and the rest of us might find acceptable would be we would be most grateful.
18:50
Lord Mann Portrait Lord Mann (Labour)
-
-
To comprehend any. Reason why anybody on the Labour benches could possibly contemplate not voting for these amendments. If I take two, seven, three. If the argument is, or leave it with us. That's not a convincing argument. I mean, the Labour Party's in some problems with young women voters, some problems with women voters problems, all voters actually at the moment. Then there has to be more than leave it with us as a response.

And the idea that speak to the the mill Labour Party members, I'm just speaking to the Labour Party, but I want to emphasise the point. I have no intention of going back to my daughters and granddaughters and this or something equivalent to or better going through. And if the Labour Party thinks that it can stop that, then it's a moment of some crisis, in my view. Now, that's not necessarily what I'm hearing from the minister's opening hearing from the minister's opening remarks, but.

I've no intention. I've no intention of doing anything that would stop this, either in this form or a better form becoming law. And what I'm hoping, therefore, and I've not had the pleasure, I think I once met the Minister in a former life, but I've not had the pleasure since she's been a Minister. In her of meeting, I thought it was refreshing the fact that she had already made a number. The concession is the wrong word. A number of disgust, thought through changes.

Having been prepared to listen, I thought, that's refreshing. We're not hearing enough of Ministers who are prepared or seen, and of Ministers who are prepared to do that. It's a weakness in government, in all governments in recent times. And so it's very, very refreshing. I'm hoping to hear is either acceptance or how we're going to accept these changes through, because there is not a case to answer in relation to amendment 273, that this should be stopped. So I'm looking forward to a continuity of the very welcome approach and making my remarks totally redundant.

Therefore, by showing that there is a a new spirit emerging in terms of how we work to get the best possible legislation that we can all be proud of.
18:54
18:54
18:54
18:55
18:56
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Stern I rise very briefly, I hope as briefly as other noble Lords, first of all, to thank the government for movement that they've made in tabling their amendments. Secondly, my Lords, to support my noble friend Baroness Doocey with her. Amendment 277 extending the the aspect of voyeurism, my Lords. And thirdly, and in particular, to support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness O'Loan, all of which I co-signed, which addressed the devastating viral nature of non-consensual intimate image abuse on which she so effectively campaigned.

And her amendments seek, I believe, very effectively, to close the gaps that leave victims traumatised by the repeated uploading of their abuse. Now, my Lords in committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness Levitt, resisted Baroness Owen's call for a statutory NCIC cash register, arguing that it would lead to duplication of work already being done voluntarily by organisations like the Revenge Porn helpline and tech platforms. But my Lords, voluntary compliance is not a systemic solution. CSAM is tackled systematically because it's mandated NCIC victims deserve the exact same proactive statutory infrastructure to prevent crossposting and re-uploads.

The Minister also resisted Baroness Owen's amendment for strict deletion orders, claiming existing deprivation orders are sufficient. Yet, my Lords, research shows that only a tiny fraction of intimate image prosecutions result in deprivation orders, leaving abusers with copies of the images in their cloud accounts. And I thought the noble, the noble Lord Pannick explained exactly why we need that new order very clearly, my Lords on committee. The Minister dismissed Baroness Owen's amendment to tackle the degrading practice of semen images, claiming the drafting was too broad and might inadvertently criminalise a woman fully clothed at a hen night posing with a novelty item.

So, my Lords, I do very much welcome the change of heart by the Minister and by the Home Office and MoJ. In that respect, my Lords, we are talking about the targeted sick degradation of women's images online and the law must adapt to protect women from this rapidly growing form of abuse. My Lords. So, my Lords, I do believe that when a conviction is secured, the court must have the power to order the destruction of images and the disclosure of passwords.

Without this, the victim lives in perpetual fear of of reupload. My Lords, I believe that Baroness Hoey has made a very strong case for her amendments, which make substantial improvements to the government proposals. I do welcome those government proposals, but I believe they could go further, my Lords.
18:59
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yes, yes. >> Yes, yes. >> My Lords, I thank. >> All noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an contributions to what has been an important and at times deeply sobering debate. And I begin by placing on record my sincere thanks to my noble friend, Baroness Owen. The noble Lady has been tireless in campaigning on these issues both inside and outside this House. At Committee stage, noble Lords from across the House recognised not only the seriousness of the harm caused by non-consensual intimate images, but also the persistence and expertise she has brought to improving the law in this area.

That work has already borne fruit in previous legislation, and it continues to shape the debate constructively here. It is also pleasing to hear the government agreeing with much of what my noble friend has said. The Prime Minister made absolutely no mention of my noble friend's work when he announced the 48 hour take down policy. And we all know that success lies with my noble friend, Lady Owen, so I'm pleased that the noble Baroness, the Minister, has rectified that today. My noble friend has also highlighted an inconsistency in the government's position.

If they are to enact the 48 hour take down policy, they are going to need to establish a central register. Given the gap between what Ofcom is able to do and what will be required to enact what the Prime Minister has announced. These proposals relating to hashing and the establishment of a statutory non-consensual intimate image register build on existing voluntary initiatives, including work undertaken by the Revenge Porn Helpline and at Committee stage, there was recognition across the House that hashing technology has already proven effective in tackling child sexual abuse material, and that extending similar mechanisms to adult victims of intimate image abuse merits serious consideration.

But more than that, they are essential to enacting the government's own recently announced policy. My Lords, the proposal to require deprivation and deletion orders following conviction is surely the logical conclusion to the existence of the offence. If it is an offence for these images to be made unshared, then it should be the case that a court will require the deletion. The emanations sorry, the amendments concerning screenshotting, copying of temporarily shared images and the creation of distribution of degrading material are also rooted in living experience of many individuals, particularly young women and girls.

Technology has outpaced the assumptions underpinning older offences. As my noble friend has argued, consent given for a time limited viewing is not consent to permanent capture, nor should the law allow perpetrators to evade liability through technical loopholes. And finally, an amendment to 77. We are supportive of the proposed expansion of the voyeurism offence to include where a person records non-consensual images of a person with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification. It is appalling that people can film others without their knowledge and consent, and use those images for their own nefarious purposes.

My Lords, I also welcome and thank the government for their engagement with my noble friend on these matters. It has been clear, both in committee and since, the Ministers have met with my noble friend and other stakeholders, and that there has been constructive cross-party dialogue. This is reflected in the numerous amendments they have tabled in this group to similar effect. That spirit of collaboration is to be commended. These issues, which concern dignity, privacy, exploitation and protection from abuse, should never be partisan.

I am therefore grateful for what has been achieved up to this point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the people pleaser in me would love to be able to say, oh, go on then I'll accept them all, go on then I'll accept them all, make everybody happy. But I'm afraid there good reasons why I can't accept some of these why I can't accept some of these amendments and respond to them all as briefly as possible, in the hope of explaining why the government of explaining why the government either in some cases doesn't consider these amendments necessary consider these amendments necessary or in others does not consider them to be it to be desirable to be done through the unwieldy mechanism of primary legislation.

So I start with amendment 273, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Owen. Deletion orders. May I say at the outset, the government, of course, recognises the harm caused by those who retain copies of intimate images, and we want to ensure that the legal framework protects victims. We agree that it is a no brainer about the principle, but for reasons I'm going to come to in a moment, it's not actually as simple to enact as it might seem. The noble Lady has correctly identified that there is a difference between depriving offenders of devices that have been used, and actually getting rid of deleting the images themselves.

If there is an issue about insufficient judges making deprivation orders for devices, then that's something that we must tackle. But this amendment is not the solution to that. And indeed, if she is right that judges are proving to be reluctant about it, there is a risk that even if this deletion order provision came into force, they might be reluctant to do that as well. So that's not the way to tackle judges not making the orders. We must make sure forgive me that what we do is workable and verified.

Deletion is highly complex in practice. There are a number of challenges about, for example, images that are stored in the cloud. And the noble Lady's amendment is very short on the practical measures that would be needed to make it effective, such as how the verification is to be carried out, or what the penalty would be for an offender who refuses to comply with an order to provide the password, or what happens during the appeal period. For example, in the Crown Court, defendants have 28 days following conviction to lodge grounds of appeal.

These are all significant drafting issues that present problems with the amendment as tabled by the noble Lady. So we do need to give this further thought. And as I said to the noble Lady at Committee stage and during our recent meetings, we are already amending deprivation orders so that they can be applied to seize intimate images and any devices containing those images, regardless of whether the device was actually used in the offence But one of the issues which concerns us is that only a fraction of the victims of intimate images go through the criminal justice system.

Many victims don't want to go anywhere near a criminal court. And so what we want to look at is the available remedies in the civil courts in order to ensure that these two will offer meaningful redress for victims. But anything we do needs to be comprehensive and a package that works well together, ensuring removal of these images as quickly as possible. And that is why I'm pleased to announce today that we intend to review the available court ordered protection for victims of intimate image abuse across both civil and criminal courts.

The review is going to include routes for deletion to ensure that it's fit for purpose. It identifies necessary improvements and that it has attached to it all the consequential provisions that need to make sure that it's actually effective. Can I say this is not an can I say this is not an attempt by the government to kick the can down the road. We want to get it right. We want it to have material value. We do not want to create something that doesn't work.

So judges don't use it. But we don't think a court order available in the criminal court addresses this problem as a whole. And that is why we need to take time to think more comprehensively about a tailored solution working for victims and for criminal justice partners. This is something that the noble Baroness Lea Lord John, professor McGlynn and I and I have discussed, and I hope that she will be content withdraw her amendment today in the light of that announcement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for giving way. The amendment, as she understands, imposes a duty as she understands, imposes a duty on judges. Therefore, there's no question of a judge deciding not to use it. But more substantially, I use it. But more substantially, I am very concerned about the delay that will result if Baroness O'Loan that will result if Baroness O'Loan does not move her amendment. Surely the proper way to deal with this is for the government to accept this for the government to accept this amendment, and if they won't, for Baroness O'Loan to move it, and if the government wish, as they're perfectly entitled to, to add or to subtract, they can do so either at Third Reading or perhaps more realistically in the other place.

They'll have plenty of time to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. But let's get on today and put this into law. Yeah, yeah. In response to the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In response to the noble Lord, the first thing is that the the criminal courts tend not to be very criminal courts tend not to be very keen on provisions that they regard keen on provisions that they regard as complex when it comes at the sent as complex when it comes at the sent have a reaction saying how to verify it, the sorts of objections that occasionally are made in relation to, for example, very complicated compensation orders or very complicated confiscation orders.

The second point is that there is, as I've already said, a real risk in piecemeal legislation
19:08
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
that you have bring in provisions for one court that then do not work in the read across from the civil in the read across from the civil courts, and that we cannot do today in terms of the civil courts. We do need to do this quickly. We need to do this quickly. We absolutely recognise this, and I am absolutely. After all, there is no point in saying you take this stuff point in saying you take this stuff seriously and then saying, but we're not going to do anything about getting rid of the images.

It's illogical. Apart from anything It's illogical. Apart from anything else, as well as perhaps not being very moral either. So I do ask the noble Lady to accept the sincerity of what we say. I think that's as far as I can go today. Turning now to amendment 274 again, in the name of the noble Lady, I understand, and I agree with what the noble Lady is trying to achieve. The only issue between us is whether this is the right way to do it.

Ofcom has already consulted on additional safety measures for its illegal content codes of practice. These proposed measures explicitly include the use of perceptual hash hash matching technology to detect and remove non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfakes, in order to be deemed compliant with their Online Safety Act duties by following the codes. Services would need to deploy this technology automatically to identify and remove such content, providing victims with reassurance that their images are being removed swiftly, swiftly, given the urgent need to strengthen protection in this area, Ofcom announced on the 19th of February that they're accelerating timelines and they will publish their final decision on these proposals on the use of hash matching in May, with measures expected to come into effect by the summer.

My Lords, we consider that the work of Ofcom meets the aims of the noble Ladies Amendment. The protection she seeks will be delivered promptly and robustly through Ofcom's forthcoming codes of practice. It is an area where unnecessarily imposing duties in statute, especially where work is already in progress, could have the adverse effect of restricting the flexibility of this work should it need to respond and change to the ever changing online landscape in the future. And of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The issue of non-compliance. And the Prime Minister launched his strategy for tackling this, saying strategy for tackling this, saying it would be a one and done system. I think it's important. Does the noble Baroness acknowledge that the noble Baroness acknowledge that the Ofcom system is not a one and done system? It's dependent on a series system? It's dependent on a series of factors on whether all service providers are choosing to adopt third party hashing and if they third party hashing and if they choose to operate their own hash database where they don't share the hashes, then it is not a one and done system.

So I'd really like to tidy up this confusion here between whether the Prime Minister is right,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or whether what is being said here is correct. Sir is right. The difference

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir is right. The difference between us is what we understand by the system. Government's position is that the Ofcom system will achieve what the Prime Minister said he wanted to achieve. That is the difference between the noble Lady and me, and I'm not sure that Lady and me, and I'm not sure that I can go any further than that this evening. Turning now to amendment 276 once again, the name of the name of the noble Lady, the NCA Register government recognises the vital work undertaken by the Revenge Porn Helpline, including operating a database of existing hashes of non-consensual intimate images that are shared with participating companies to detect and remove the images online.

We recognise the benefits that a register of verified NCA content would provide, including the important role this could play in supporting victims in the removal of the content. This is one of insta between us is whether or not it's able to put it on a statutory footing. Government's position is that it's not a necessity for its success, and it needs very careful consideration, especially to ensure that an nshe register aligns with the process taken by the Internet Watch Foundation's register for Child sexual abuse imagery, which operates successfully and has never been on a statutory footing.

And in order to avoid any unintended consequences. For this reason, I confirm that the government are committing to undertake a preliminary evaluation to determine the operational needs and the impact of establishing a successful central register for non-consensual intimate image abuse and this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evaluation. Forgive me. I just think it's important to clarify, for the sake of the house, clarify, for the sake of the house, that the Internet Watch Foundation's register the with CSAM materials CSAM material is illegal materials CSAM material is illegal in and of itself. NCA material non-consensual intimate images is non-consensual intimate images is not illegal in and of itself, and therefore then the a voluntary system will not work. It needs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system will not work. It needs to be on a statutory footing. Anyone suggesting that it should be voluntary, it simply whether it should be established through primary legislation or whether it should be done through regulation. I used the expression earlier that the unwieldiness of primary legislation, after one of the problems with legislating through primary legislation, is you get it wrong, then you've got to try and amend it or repeal it. Whereas if you have regulations particularly backed up by enforcement powers, it's a much more nimble way of going about things.

And that is really the issue between us. So the evaluation will also assess critical considerations that are still outstanding, including the fact that such a registry has on intermediary liability and what is needed to establish robust verification procedures. And the findings will be used to guide next steps to ensure that any options are sustainable and effective, and work alongside existing regulation for platforms. Turning back again to semen defaced images. Amendment 284 and 296A also in the name of the noble Lady.

As I said on opening this group, the government agrees with the noble Lady. Semen imagery is disgusting behaviour, and that's exactly why we brought forward our own amendments to criminalise the sharing of semen defaced image without consent, the inclusion of semen on the body, as in the noble Lady's amendment is unnecessary, and this is because such images would already fall within the scope of the intimate image offences. And I can confirm that directly. In answer to her question, that the example she gave will already be covered and should already be covered by the existing legislation.

She asks whether we can, in effect, require the CPS to to amend its guidance to make it clearer. CPS is, of course, an independent organisation constitutionally importantly so, but we can certainly look at asking them if they would be prepared to do so. In addition, the amendments restricted the noble Ladies Amendment's restrictive language also means that it wouldn't actually target images that show semen on an image of the victim, which is the harm I believe she seeks to address and with which we agree.

The government's new semen defaced image offence will fall within providers illegal content duties under the Online Safety Act, and this means that services must have proportionate systems and processes to remove this material swiftly once they're alerted to it. But designating an offence as a priority. Illegal content as amendment 2968 would do is a further and more significant step. It triggers offence specific risk assessments and can require proactive detective measures across all in-scope services, including small platforms. Adding new priority offences must therefore be done carefully because it carries real world regulatory burdens and affects how Ofcom and the industry focus their resources.

Again, I want to reassure your Lordships that the government absolutely remains open to adding new priority offences and the Online Safety Act gives us delegated powers precisely so we can update the list at the right moment. But we must do this through a proper evidence based process to keep the regime proportionate, coherent and effective. Turning now to amendment 277 in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, there have recently been truly disturbing accounts of men filming women on a night out and sharing these images and videos online without their consent.

So I completely sympathise with the harm that the noble Lady is seeking to address. Criminalising taking photos in public without consent but with intent to cause alarm, humiliation or distress. The difficulty is that, as drafted, this amendment is too wide. Whilst it is plainly not her intention, such an offence could, for example, have a profound effect on journalists. It would, because it would not restrict the offence to taking a photograph of a or a film of a person in an intimate state, so such an offence could criminalise a press photographer taking an embarrassing photo of a public figure that is not intimate, but would otherwise call them, cause them humiliation or distress.

In fact, in many cases, the content she's concerned about is already criminal, certainly through upskirting provisions. And if repeated stalking and harassment provisions, and if it is done for financial gain, this can already be considered at sentencing as an aggravating factor. But this is not to say we're not acting. As I said many, many times, this government is committed to tackling violence against women and girls, which is why we're commencing the protection from sex Based Harassment in Public Act 2023 on the 1st of April.

And we're also funding an innovative police tactic called Project Vigilant, where specially trained police observe people in public to try and identify and disrupt those exhibiting predatory behaviours. As I said earlier, we'll launch a call for evidence online on online misogynistic, image based abuse to help us consider further changes to the criminal law. So I said, I really do understand why what the noble Lady is trying to achieve. The recent media reports are really disturbing, but in the light of the government's ongoing work and the issues I've outlined with respect to the broad scope, I do invite her to withdraw her amendment.

Finally, I turn to amendment 467 B in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Bertin. Once again, I understand the intention underlying this amendment. There is an epidemic of violence against women and girls, much of it taking place online. But that said, due process demands that any substantive provisions, including new criminal offences, are commenced no earlier than two months after Royal Assent, except in the most exceptional circumstances. A change in the criminal law is a particularly serious matter, and for reasons of fairness, it is crucial that law enforcement partners are given appropriate time to ensure that they can operationalise these provisions and time for the CPS, for example, to prepare guidance for prosecutors to ensure the new offences can be used effectively.

Whilst I understand new measures are needed urgently, we must give the public and criminal justice system sufficient notice of impending changes to the criminal law. But I would like to reassure your Lordships that this government is committed to commencing these provisions by regulations as soon as possible. My Lords, may I say again how grateful I am to all those who have spoken. These issues are so important. Government is with you. We must make the online world a safer place, especially for women and girls.

But we have got to get it right. I hope all of those who have moved amendments today will understand why the government cannot support those I have spoken to, but I and my ministerial counterparts in other departments are keen to continue and build upon the helpful discussions we have already had. In the meantime, I would invite them to withdraw their amendments, but I am pleased to be moving the government's amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today, which I beg to move. My Lords, before my noble friend sits down in relation to amendment 273, which I'm sure the whole House 273, which I'm sure the whole House agrees with. In essence, what the amendment says. But I also noted from my noble friend that it is from my noble friend that it is it's much more complex than I had understood. I'm sure that my noble understood. I'm sure that my noble friend is as frustrated as everybody else that these things take time, and I wonder if she is able to give us any timeline.

Sorry, I'm an optimist, but but I mean, I think this is an extremely important amendment and I will be supporting the government, but it would be good to know if we're talking about months or, or whatever, because obviously we want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to see this in statute as soon as possible. I don't think I can quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't think I can quite express how unpopular I would be if I suddenly, on the hoof, came out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with a time. All I can say is that we're committed to doing this quickly. Noble Baroness, the Minister sits down. Just to emphasise, we've talked about drafting issues on amendment 273 and obviously not amendment 273 and obviously not wanting to delay, but I would just like to remind the House that I did first, bring up forced deletion in September 2024. So that's been about 17 months now where this issue has been before the House, it was in in front of my it was in the Data (Use and Access) Bill in December 2024 when the Minister said, there's no problem here because it should be seen under section 153 of the 2020 Sentencing Act.

This is not working. And I think the only answer really is to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deal with this tonight. Question does the government amendment 271 be agreed to as many of that opinion will say, content, not content, the contents have it. We come now to amendment 272

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies Apologies to Apologies to the Apologies to the House Apologies to the House that Apologies to the House that on slight confusion over what I was slight confusion over what I was meant to be doing next. My Lords, I'm pleased to be opening this group today with the introduction group today with the introduction of government amendments. 272 of government amendments. 272 297449450 and 458I start by once again thanking the noble Lady Baroness Bertin for the insightful Baroness Bertin for the insightful recommendations in her pornography review.

I also thank her for meeting me on a number of occasions now over the last few months, and for the cordial and constructive tone of those meetings. There is very little between the government
19:23
None Portrait Amendment:g272 Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

and the noble Lady in terms of our objectives. We recognise that her intention is to prevent the deeply unpleasant and damaging effect of unpleasant and damaging effect of what happens in both the online and offline worlds, including the effects upon our children. I hope effects upon our children. I hope and believe she also recognises that I am sincere when I say that we want to achieve the same thing we want to achieve the same thing the government has, where possible, tried to deliver on the issues she has raised and I thank her for the has raised and I thank her for the time she has taken to talk them through with us.

I know that she has some concerns with regard to certain aspects of these amendments, to which I will respond later, but first I will speak to the government amendments. I start with notification apps, amendments two, 72 and two and 449. Amendments 272 and 449 together introduce a new offence which will ban the making, adapting, supplying or offer to supply of a tool or service for use as a generator of intimate images. This offence will give effect to our violence against women and girls.

Strategy. Commitment to ban notification tools. This offence will capture intimate image generators in all their unpleasant forms, including but not limited to apps, software, websites, AI models and bots to be captured by the criminal offence, the tool must be made or supplied for the use of generating purported intimate images, irrespective of whether this is a primary purpose. The new tool ban will be the first of its kind in the world, and it will target the developers and suppliers who profit from the profound distress and victimisation of others.

We will work with international partners and fora to tackle this issue. The government is committed to tackling the scourge of non-consensual sexual deepfakes, and will continue to act to ensure artificial intelligence cannot be misused to generate this abusive content. In addition to banning image generators, we have also announced that we will table an amendment to this bill to allow the government to bring additional chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act, and require them to protect their users from illegal content, including non-consensual intimate images.

We will also work. Forgive me, with international partners and fora to tackle this issue. Once the offence is in force, the Online Safety Act will impose requirements on social media and search services to have processes and systems in place to remove illegal content which supplies or offers to supply notification tools, and this will significantly limit their accessibility to users in the UK. Turning now to another unpleasant topic incest. Amendments 297450 and 458. My Lords, it is with some pride that I bring forward amendments 297450 and 458 today.

These amendments together criminalise the possession of publication of pornographic images that portray sexual activity between family members, otherwise known unattractively, as incest porn. In doing so, we give effect to one of the key recommendations of the noble Lady. Baroness Burton's independent review of pornography. I know that the noble Lady will soon speak to a cluster of her own amendments on this issue, but before she does, I wish to place on record my sincere thanks to her for the vital role she has played in bringing forward this important change.

We know that there are concerns that the proliferation of incest themed pornography can contribute to extremely harmful attitudes, particularly where it risks normalising child sexual abuse. This amendment recognises those concerns. We are also pleased to announce that this new offence will be listed as a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to take proactive and proportionate steps to stop this harmful material appearing online. The offence, as it stands, will not capture pornography depicting relationships between step relatives.

This is a controversial topic, but these relationships are not illegal in real life. But to be clear, any pornography involving real children, whether a step element is present or not, is already criminalised under the Protection of Children Act 1978. I beg to move.
19:27
Baroness Bertin Portrait Baroness Bertin (Conservative)
-
-
Clause 89 insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 2982978281A 303 hundred A in my name and I thank Baroness A in my name and I thank Baroness Benjamin, particularly Baroness Benjamin, who has worked on this issue for so many years. Baroness Kidron Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Kennedy for adding their names to this set of amendments. One thing is clear from the past few weeks the status quo that has allowed abuse, misogyny, paedophilia and the exploitation of women and girls to flourish cannot continue.

The recent release of The Epstein Files, which were porn drenched, should be our moment of reckoning, a moment that forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, complicity and the systems that allow abuse to thrive in plain sight. One of those systems is the modern online pornography industry. This House knows my steadfast commitment to bringing effective regulation to this sector, and I believe this group of amendments will bring about this much needed reset. This is a sector that has been driven to abusive extremes by powerful, profit driven algorithms, too often monetising sexual violence and degradation.

Categories such as so-called barely legal may claim illegality because performers are over 18, but the aesthetic is deliberate. Youth, vulnerability and childhood. They are a fig leaf for the sexualisation of minors. Exploitation and trafficking are rife. Sexual abuse material remains far too easy to find on these sites, and many survivors tell us what is filmed as content is, in reality recorded abuse. This cannot continue. Amendment 298, when laid, had the intention of closing the gaping disparity between offline and online regulation.

If content cannot be legally sold in a shop or in a DVD, it should not be freely available online. For decades, physical distribution has had classification, compliance and enforcement. Online self-regulation still dominates. This amendment sets out in clear terms the material that must not be distributed online. This is based on the Bbfc's guidelines and therefore mirrors what is illegal and prohibited offline. Bringing parity across regimes, it also provides for an independent auditing body working alongside Ofcom.

I would suggest the BBFC, but I I'm not being specific on that to carry out spot checks and audits of pornography, so that content that would never meet the criteria for physical distribution is detected and removed, not simply noticed and ignored. For too long. There has been a stark and indefensible disparity between how harmful pornography is treated offline and the far looser standards applied online. Tomorrow it will be five years since the murder of Sarah Everard when Wayne Couzens was arrested.

He had free to view violent pornography across all his devices. Over 90% of online pornographic content features verbal, physical and sexual violence towards women. Some of this content is viewed 14 million times a month and falls within the legal definition of acts of torture. Police now arrest a thousand suspected paedophiles every month. The direction of travel is obvious and intolerable. 297 AA. I remain grateful to Ministers for the for the government amendment addressing incest, but I am mystified why it does not include step incest.

In 2024, 4.1 billion videos viewed on Pornhub featured incest related scenarios, including step incest. Section 27 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 2003 is clear. Nearly all step relations between step parents and step siblings is illegal. This is because Parliament recognised the clear power imbalance in step family relationships within households, and also Parliament acted because step relations are the most likely relationships in which child sexual abuse takes place. In fact, in the UK, around half of all sexual abuse cases against children are perpetrated by a stepparent.

Yet the depiction of this type of pornography allows porn companies to profit from content that depicts something which is utterly illegal in the UK. I don't know if the government realised this. I fail to understand why the government amendment does not enact all of section 27, the Sexual Offences Act. This is why I tabled amendments 297 A to D, which will ensure the provisions of this bill capture the depiction of those relationships I've just spoken about. This is not a novel concept.

It simply reflects UK law. And it would be indefensible to miss this opportunity to outlaw depictions of this kind of content, especially when we know it has become the most abusive but popular forms of pornography. Amendment 308. And can I just also reiterate that depictions of incest being banned is great, but it's just token. If you don't ban step incest, then it's just all going to be driven into the stepping stone character category. And it's just as it's just as damaging.

Amendment 308 then goes on to address a fundamental legal loophole. The. The law currently allows an adult to mimic a child in pornographic content, and for that content to remain lawful online. This amendment closes that loophole, updating the Protection of Children Act 1978 and extending the offence of making indecent photographs of a child to pornographic material that depicts a child when a when that role is being played by an adult. This content is known as barely legal and is marketed as such.

At present, the law only covers indecent images of actual children or pseudo photographs. Pseudo photographs for child cover images, where an image is digitally modified to appear as a child. It does not cover adults pretending to be children and mimicking child sexual abuse. So we had the strange situation of rightly prohibiting an AI generated video depicting sexual activity with young looking girls on the basis it normalises and promotes child sexual abuse, but not of a very similar video of real actors who just look very young, as is in the case in online pornography, there is an extensive range of material on mainstream porn sites where adults role play is very young looking girls.

This is a deliberate choice, with settings in children's bedrooms, with actors in children's clothes, braces, toys, pigtails and other markers of childhood. These videos are tagged often with little tiny age gap, commonly also depicting sex with stepbrothers, sex with stepfathers having sex with their. Currently fathers, and all of those things. Terms such as tiny, teen, schoolgirl, petite are also commonly used. We also have to be very clear about this that teen is the most frequently occurring word in searches, as is female punishment.

Let's consider that a recent investigation showed that most popular videos in the UK, only a tiny proportion involved consensual, non-violent sex, with no family members and no teens. And teen content is also the most violent category. This type of content we are talking about, which mimics child sexual abuse, normalises the sexualisation of children, promotes the idea that children consent and fuels demand for real child abuse material. Let me be clear the content we are trying to capture in amendment three 300 A is not adult men who are very clearly adult men dressing up in nappies, for example, or grown women wearing school uniforms.

It is content where very young looking 18 year olds are styled to look like prepubescent and prepubescent children and pubescent children. Predators themselves say that this trajectory began there with their normal sorry predators themselves, so that their trajectory began with this normalised extreme content. Moving on to amendment 300, this introduces rock bottom safeguards on consent, age verification, and accountability on pornography site websites to verify the age and consent of everyone featured on their site and enable withdrawal of consent at any time.

No material should be published unless every individual has given explicit consent. As a verified adult, this should be the bare minimum standard we put on these porn sites. For those who think this is theoretical in France, cases currently in the courts involve allegations of rape, gang rape, trafficking, and aggravated pimping during porn production, with videos uploaded to mainstream platforms. Finally, amendment 281A addresses the possession and use of software that creates nude images of a real person without consent.

My amendment makes it an offence to intentionally possess, obtain, or store software whose primary purpose is to create or alter sexually explicit or nude images of another person without consent. I welcome the government's attempt, but it will not capture software made overseas. These loopholes will bring no change whatsoever. The reality we've seen in recent weeks is industrial scale, non-consensual sexual imagery at speed, at scale, at almost zero cost. And I do believe this legislation would also not have caught Brock.

The regulation must go further. Many MPs from the other place have been in touch, wanting us to get clarity on this point. So if he agrees to do this at Third Reading, sorry if the Minister, my noble friend the Minister agrees to give this kind of clarity at Third Reading. We will not divide the House on this issue, but I think it is. It is wrong to, to, to, to, to make announcements where you are saying that you have banned something and you potentially haven't.

And I think we have to be really clear on that, because otherwise we have the worst of all worlds. I will finish very briefly by saying that taken, taken together, these amendments would and should trigger a far more aggressive business disruption process across the porn ecosystem. Payment services. Payment service providers like Sagepay and acquiring banks across the sector like Woodforest, Paysafe plus, visa and Mastercard would have a far clearer set of rules that they would need to apply to the content they process or face.

Repercussions. Porn is ultimately about the money, and we need far tighter regulation and law that ends the grey area and replaces the passive light touch self-regulation to far more proactive scrutiny. I hope this House and the government will House and the government will support these amendments in full. And to.
19:38
Baroness Hazarika Portrait Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
-
I want to be supportive of the. >> I want to be supportive of the. >> Government, but I do also really urge the government to listen really, really closely to to what Baroness Bertin has said today, particularly in light, as she mentioned, about the Jeffrey Epstein files, pornography pervaded the Jeffrey Epstein files. This is a scandal that has shocked us all. It has come to this House. It has affected the upper echelons of society. And I just want to read you a message that one of Jeffrey Epstein's friends sent to him in the Epstein files.

He said, porn has taken over and the guy's just one in the bedroom. What they have seen in porn. I think that this is a moment for the government to be very brave. This is not a moment to be socially conservative. It is better for the government to be right at the vanguard on this. And we often ask the exam question, you know, is there a point, you know, how can we prove that porn is affecting real life? That time is here, that time is now, and we have seen it through the Epstein files.

And I just want to leave you with this. On January the 20th, 2017, Jeffrey Epstein was Skype messaging with a young girl still in school, and he sent her instructions to watch Pornhub. He said, it will be very odd at first, but think of this as a school project. Don't be shy. Watch your reactions with no judgement. We are seeing pornography being used in real time to groom young women and young men, and I really hope the government will listen to Baroness Bertin.

Thank you.
19:40
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have put my name to support the amendments in the name of the the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bird, my Lords, over the last eight years or more, over the last eight years or more, every time that we've debated the harmful pornography issues in these amendments, I think why is it taking so long for change? But I'm an optimist. I never give up. So I keep on believing change is a coming good will prevail.

And my Lords, the murder of Sarah Everard and the recent revelations, as we've just heard contained in the Epstein files, expose graphically just how much online pornography has not only influenced violent sexual behaviour towards women and girls, but cause massive long term harm to the victims subjected to it. This is why these amendments are crucial to the well-being of women and girls, and also men and boys, as well as very, very young children, protecting them from violence and harm, from having their minds distorted and in many cases, having their childhood taken away from them.

My Lords, for years now, Barnardo's and I declare an interest as vice president. And CSAS have long called for online pornography to be regulated to the same standards as offline. My Lords, content involving strangulation, incest and adult stresses, children, as well as that involving trafficking and torture is rightly illegal offline. Yet these images and videos remain widely accessible online. This inconsistency is indefensible and must be stopped, so it's a relief that the government is now moving on this issue to put a stop to it.

Hallelujah! Thank goodness this change is has been worth waiting for. This is common sense. Why should children be exposed to harmful online material which is rightly illegal offline? The harm of violent online pornography is not abstract or without consequence. Men who watch violent online pornography are more likely to be violent towards women and girls, as well as sexually harming children. So the sooner action is taken to make the offline and online world compatible, the better for our children's well-being and mental health.

My Lords, I support Baroness Burt amendments, all of them, and I just have to congratulate her for her tenacity and her commitment to making a difference. And I will speak on amendment 300 because it seeks to ensure that platforms undertake age consent checks for performers. This is critical. A critical amendment in protecting women and girls user generated content dominates dominates pornography platforms. Yet this content is often uploaded with little or no verification. My Lords, it's great that this amendment would ensure that every individual featured in all content is an adult and has given consent.

But crucially, women are given the right to withdraw the consent content consent at any time and have the content removed. My Lords, I also support amendment 2818, which seeks to ban modification apps. My Lords, the government must be commended for their actions in making it an offence to create deepfake images where there's an outstanding issue of so-called unification apps. As we've heard, these AI powered tools are being used to create non-consensual sexual images targeting women and girls.

Even very, very young children, the Internet Watch Foundation reported 360% increase in AI generated child exploration images, so we must stop every loophole to make thought that that is not possible. If we do not act now, technology will continue to outpace regulation, leaving victims unprotected. So, my Lords, I urge the government to support these amendments. They are the foundation of a safer online world. If we fail to act, we risk legitimising a culture where abuse is normalised and we cannot allow the increase of harmful online content to continue.

It must be stopped too, because it causes harm. It poisons minds, especially those of children, very young people, and distort the concept of a healthy, loving relationship. My Lords, I'll say it again, I'll say it again and I'll say it again. Childhood last a lifetime. So let us act now to ensure that every childhood is free from abuse, victimisation and exploitation. Let's act now, sooner rather than later, to help those victims who are being victimised. Right at this very, very moment.

Let's focus our minds on those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people and those children. Thank you. My Lords. I rise briefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lady Burton. It has of the noble Lady Burton. It has been a very grim afternoon. I have to say repeatedly some of the most horrendous things that can happen to women and children. And I do say to the noble Lady, the Minister, you for whom I have a great deal of respect, and who spoke very passionately a word that's normally
19:46
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
associated with me, but passionately that it is still, you passionately that it is still, you know, too little, too late, too long. Across a number of these long. Across a number of these issues we have been I know that the noble Lady is relatively new in the house, but we have been debating these things for eight years, and I remember having this exact discussion during the online safety bill, and we have to just move on. We cannot keep on saying it moves quickly, and then allowing us to move this slowly.

So let me just say the noble Lady made a really strong case that online porn affects real life. It's real life violence. And there is this unbelievable, vast overlap with child sexual abuse. And I think that it is that mess that we have to see as one. And in that sense, I think the noble Lady made the case for all of her amendments. I did just want to very quickly mention the amendment, which is Government amendment 272, which establishes an offence for a person to make or adapt a supply offer a thing to use as a generator for imitating, emit intimate images.

And what's happened to that amendment is exactly the same as what happened to the child sexual abuse amendment that has the same form, which is it deals with intentionality. It says, if you absolutely intend to do this, it will be illegal. But if it happens in general on any old piece of software that somebody hasn't bothered to put train properly or put protections in, then you're not caught. And I believe that's what the noble Lady has in her broader amendment about software.

And I just really want to make this point that there seems to be a reluctance to catch general purpose technology in these issues of child abuse or violence against women, intimate image abuse, pornography. And I hope that the government is listening. We cannot avoid general purpose technology if general purpose technology is spreading, creating and making this situation available across the communities, it is in that space that so many children first see porn. It is in that space that so many women are abused, and it is in that space that so much child sexual abuse is present.

And so I just do urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to think about the breadth and not just the intentionality, because in my view, it doesn't really matter whether it's accidental on the part of the company. And I'll just finish by saying this. I had the privilege of meeting Yoshua Bengio last week, and he is absolutely central to the development of AI and neural networks and so on. And he said, and I paraphrase, show me the incentive and I'll show you the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

design. Lord Tyrie very briefly, partly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a male of the species, because since we are largely responsible for the situation we responsible for the situation we are describing, we are behind these business models. We are the the sex business models. We are the the sex that is making all the money out of it. We are, in most cases, the abusers. I do think it behoves us abusers. I do think it behoves us to actually acknowledge that and speak up about it. I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Bertin, the noble Lady Baroness Bertin, who is the mother of, of of young children on our behalf, has for over two years subsumed herself in a world which most of us can barely imagine.

That must have been an extraordinarily unpleasant and difficult experience,
19:50
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
and I pay tribute to her for doing it, because I'm not sure many of us would have taken that on or would would have taken that on or would have lasted the course. So with that in mind, given the time and that in mind, given the time and the thought she has given to this, the number of experts she has spoken to, the number of spoken to, the number of international parameters and comparators she has taken into account in looking at this, the account in looking at this, the detailed way in which she has analysed the business models which underline this highly profitable business, I do think it behoves all of us, and particularly the government, to listen very carefully, because the amendments that she is bringing forth are not something she dreamt up overnight.

The amendments she has brought forward are based on her detailed, detailed, painful knowledge of exactly how this business operates, and she is identifying some gaps in the approach, the laudable approach the government is taking to try and do something about this. My Lords, with my business experience hat on a major fault that businesses make is overpromising and under-delivering. And my Lords, Her Majesty's Government is in grave danger of doing exactly that in many of these areas to do with violence against women and girls.

It is wonderful to have the headlines and to say, we are taking this seriously and we are doing something about it. My Lords, the devil is in the detail and the detail is effective implementation. And to effectively implement, you have to understand the business model. And as people have said previously, you have to be prepared to disrupt it.
19:52
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson Portrait Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)
-
-
More than 40 years ago, >> More than 40 years ago, Parliament ensured that pornographic material that was deemed too degrading, too explicit or too dangerous could not be distributed. Parliament never changed its mind, but technology overtook the law, which is why we now have the absurd situation where content is illegal when viewed on a DVD, but legal and freely available on the internet. And that is why we desperately need amendment 298 to deliver online offline parity. And I too want to pay tribute to my noble friend Baroness Burton, her team and all the other noble Lords in this House who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue.

As we have heard for many years. Moving on to my noble friends, other amendments, I support all of them, but I would like to speak briefly to three of them. I welcome the government's commitment to tackle incest pornography, but without including stepfamily relationships, this new amendment will have little to no impact on the actual content available. The videos will be the same. They will merely be retitled. My noble friend has already explained the popularity and violence of the barely legal teen pornography content.

Other countries have already legislated legislated to prevent this type of material from proliferating. Amendment 308 would ensure that we did the same. Finally, amendment 300. This amendment is about preventing exploitation and abuse. My Lord. The porn industry is an industry that makes money from the violence against girls and women. It's an industry that we know profits from human trafficking. This is not an industry we can trust to do the right things. So I strongly support this amendment and very much hope that my noble friend will test the opinion of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this and all her other amendments. If Ministers are not able to move further. Associate myself with what my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Russell said about the remarkable contribution of Baroness Bertin. And can I also of Baroness Bertin. And can I also thank the Minister for all her efforts today to explain the government's position and the government's position and the amendments that she, on behalf of the government, has brought forward. Amendment 298 is very important Amendment 298 is very important because it seeks to regulate online harmful content, and I support the principle very much that can I just raise a quibble? And it's an important quibble, because what
19:54
19:56
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, as with the last group of amendments, my Lords on these benches, we support the government's amendments. But we don't believe that they go far enough. And I would like also, alongside the noble Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her tireless work on the Independent Pornography Review, and subsequently and on these benches. We fully support her amendments to ban step incest pornography content that mimics child sexual abuse. Age verification for those featured on porn sites and AI notification apps, and to establish vital parity between online and offline pornography regulation.

And my Lords, I'm going to be extremely brief. Amendment 298 in particular, would create parity between offline and online regulation content that would not be classified offline by the BBFC should not be legal online, and Baroness Bertin rightly proposes a monitoring role for the BBFC to support Ofcom's enforcement. And I very much hope that the government will concede on this. And then secondly, another important amendment. 281A and my Lord, sir, the government can easily on ping pong alter that amendment.

If the noble Lord Pannick criticisms are taken on board. My Lords. Secondly, there is amendment 281 which I have also signed. The government's new amendments are too narrow. Clearly, as the noble Baroness Bertin has described, by limiting scope to UK products, they ignore the global nature of this harm. We must go further to capture possession and use of any software designed to produce these non-consensual images. I very much hope, my Lords, that we will be able to avoid the votes on those four amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward, and that the government will take those on board.
19:58
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the many amendments in this group, as we've heard, all concern the regulation of online pornography. And it's notable, I think, that many of the amendments have been signed by noble Lords, from parties from across the political spectrum, showing a very firm desire in your Lordships House to regulate harmful online pornography. Can I again thank my noble friend Baroness Bertin for the extensive work that she has carried out in this area and echo what has been said by several noble Lords this evening in support of her long standing commitment to this cause.

And I also thank other noble Lords who not only have spoken this evening, but have been involved elsewhere in efforts to make online pornography, the online pornography space, safer for children and adults. Can I focus briefly on some of my noble friends? Amendments amendment 281A, as we've heard, would create an offence for the possession of software which can produce nude images, nude images of another individual. These benches are fully supportive of this amendment. It goes a significant way in ensuring that women and girls are protected.

Amendment 298, as we've heard, creates online and offline parity for pornography standards. It's obviously wrong, my Lords, that offences which are illegal and would be a horrible, abhorrent to reasonable members of the public, such as non-consensual sexual activities or those involving actors who appear to be children, are to be allowed to be featured online. This amendment addresses the clear disconnect between the online and offline world. My Noble Friends amendment 300 proposes several sensible improvements to current legislation. It would ensure that those who are featured on online platforms have both provided their consent to do so, and are of the appropriate age.

I would be astonished if noble Lords disagreed with either of these principles. And lastly, amendment 300 A is an important amendment which would close the loophole in the current law whereby actors who, although over the age of 18, create sexual contexts, that depicts the indecent sexualization of children, that represents an overt endorsement and encouragement of child sexual abuse and such a state of affairs is plainly wrong, and I thank my noble friend for her efforts to rectify this issue.

Can I thank all noble Lords for their contributions? And I look forward to the noble Lord. Noble Baroness May Minister's response.
20:01
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the government, of >> My Lords, the government, of course, sympathises. The intention behind all of these amendments they behind all of these amendments they raise important but tricky issues. I am pleased that they received such an extensive airing this evening, and I apologise in advance for the fact that this speech is a bit longer than some of the others, but some of these are complicated. I also know that some of what I will say will not be what some of your Lordships may wish to hear.

So I start by reminding the House that the government has moved on some of the important issues raised, and I can assure your Lordships that we have no intention of stopping here. But there are some areas which do need further consideration, and there are others where we have genuine operational concerns. We are committed to continuing to work with the noble Lady, Baroness Burton, I, as well as my fellow Ministers and the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, have immensely valued her time and her expertise in the meetings we have had with her.

And it is because of this direct engagement that we have brought forward some of the amendments today. They are entirely to her credit, and I hope that we can continue the discussions. I turn, first of all to the notification apps. Again, we have sympathy with the underlying objective of amendment 281 A, but we do not believe that it is necessary for two reasons. First, the aim of amendment 281 is already captured by the recently commenced section 66 E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which bans individuals from using new notification tools to create intimate images without consent, and section 66 B of the 2003 act bans anyone from sharing such images once they have been created.

Secondly, notification tools are commonly accessed online, for example via a website, an AI model, or a chatbot. A person using a tool will not necessarily possess or have downloaded the relevant software or model, and that means that amendment 281 would risk creating an unworkable discrepancy between very similar tools being accessed via different means. For example, it might capture a tool if it was downloaded as code by a user, but not if it was accessed as a website. So for this reason, we focussed the government amendment on banning the creation and the supply of such tools, rather than just the software.

Government is confident that the combined effect of the new offence in government amendment 272, along with regulation via the Online Safety Act and existing Criminal offences, banning individuals from creating and sharing intimate images without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consent is an effective package in tackling this egregious harm in all its forms, of course. Forgive me, I promise not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, I promise not to interrupt you too much. But what about the point that it will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extend beyond UK apps? This is always the problem with criminal offences and that is the criminal offences and that is the reason why on a on occasions the government has said that we want to government has said that we want to urge caution before creating criminal offences, when things that can be dealt with through regulation have a much wider reach. One drawback of any criminal offence is that they typically only apply where prosecutors are able to establish UK jurisdiction to provide some extraterritorial effect.

We've ensured that section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act applies to this offence, which will enable prosecutors to target overseas offending by UK nationals, bodies and associations that the regulations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I accept that and let's face it, this is the wrong bill for this piece of legislation that I'm this piece of legislation that I'm prepared to admit that or accept that. But you surely as a government, you know, we have to government, you know, we have to accept that this is Department of Science and Technology. This is a criminal bill. I know, but you could, on the floor of this House, could, on the floor of this House, make the point that you are then therefore going to reopen the Online Safety Act and bring Online Safety Act and bring regulation into to to support the very good, I think, amendments that you're putting in at this point or the amendments that I be putting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down in, in, in two, eight, one a. These are. The conversations that we wish to carry on having in relation to to carry on having in relation to is how to best go about this, to make sure that we achieve the aim that we are all trying to get to, that we are all trying to get to, which is to get rid of these horrible things that create these cuttings. I would like to be able cuttings. I would like to be able to continue the conversation with the noble Lady in due course.

Point made by the noble Lady Baroness made by the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, who stressed that there was undue emphasis upon intention and states of mind. Again, this is the problem with criminal offences. We do not create criminal offences where people who have done something accidentally end up being criminalised for it. And that's why on occasions we're saying that regulation may be a better tool. The noble Lady is looking outraged.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I didn't I didn't tackle the noble Lady on, on on matters of legal what we do and don't do in legal what we do and don't do in the law. But but you know, if, if a, the law. But but you know, if, if a, if you accidentally poison children's food, you don't get a free pass, you know, you know if you're a I mean there's all sorts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of places and spaces which do have to. All right. I'm going to sit down. I the. Greatest respect for noble Lady. We will continue this. We will continue this. But the fact is that all criminal offences, pretty much apart from offences and in strict liability offences, are pretty unpopular in the criminal law. We'll discuss this later. But take it from me that it's very rare to criminalise something that is done accidentally. Anyway, I turn now to incest. First amendment 299 as I said earlier today, the government's tabled a cluster of amendments which seek to go further than amendment 299 by criminalising the possession and publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity between both adult and child family members.

The reason for doing that is that it makes it more straightforward for law enforcement and regulators to tackle the harmful content, as pornography that portrays a family relationship will be criminalised, and the prosecutor does not need to have to prove that the person concerned is under 18 or is a child. It can be very difficult to do to prove that the person is actually a child. We therefore consider Government Amendment 297 to more robustly address the harm that the noble Lady Baroness Bertin is seeking to address.

Turning to her amendments 297 297B, 297C and 297D although I understand why she wishes to extend the government's amendment to a wider range of relationship, it is relationships. It is important that your Lordships understand that such an extension would criminalise sexual relationships that are lawful between adults in real life, and that is something in relation to her. Amendment two 988. The noble Lady specifically sought to include. It would go further than offline regulation, where some portrayals of relative relationships are classified, provided they're not in any way abusive in nature.

In addition, this change proposed by the noble Ladies Amendment would significantly increase the complexity of the offence. For example, if the pornographic image depicted sex between step siblings, operational partners would then also have to consider whether the person's live or have lived together, or whether one person is or has been regularly involved in caring for the other. It would be challenging for the police and the CPS to determine and ultimately prosecute. The intention behind the government's amendment is to make it as straightforward as possible to enforce and prosecute.

And with that being said, and whilst I do appreciate what the noble Lady is trying to achieve, I would urge her to withdraw that amendment. Turning now to parity, I want to put on record that the government accepts the principle at the heart of the noble Lady. Baroness Bertin amendment 298. There is a clear and urgent need for greater parity between the treatment of harmful pornography online and offline, and this government, which has prioritised tackling tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, will show the leadership necessary to deliver it.

We have, with thanks to the noble Lady, already taken steps in this bill to criminalise some of the most egregious forms of content that are currently mainstream online. The strangulation pornography offence added at Committee stage, and the further changes we are bringing forward today on incest pornography have been added because of the noble Lady. These matters are now prohibited under offline regulation and acknowledging that the changing online world brings new challenges that must be tackled to address emerging harms, we will also be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography to assess its effectiveness.

We will ensure that our online regulatory framework keeps pace with these changes on the criminal law, delivery of parity and regulatory treatment has already started. Once in force, these offences will become priority offences in the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to have proportionate systems and processes in place to prevent UK users from encountering this content. This should stop this abhorrent content circulating unchecked on online platforms, where right now it's being recommended to unwitting users. While these measures mark a significant step forward in protecting individuals online, we acknowledge that they do not address the totality of the complex question on parity.

The current offline regime relies on checks on individual pieces of content, which can consider wider context and in a way that does not easily translate to the scale and speed of online content. For this reason, we cannot accept the noble Lady's amendment, but because we completely agree with the need for greater parity, the government is committing our joint pornography team, which was announced as part of the Vawg strategy to produce a delivery plan within six months of Royal Assent. Crucially, the delivery plan will set out how, not whether, the government can most effectively close the gap, and this will include consideration of how a new approach can address other potentially harmful content, such as porn, such as pornography portraying incest relationships or adults role playing as children.

The delivery plan will thoroughly test which approach will be most effective by testing, audit and reporting functions, and considering how this can be done at scale to achieve the desired impact. Plan will also consider how and which regulatory frameworks can best address the issue. Noting the interactions with the BBC, Bbfc's existing remit and Ofcom's Ofcom under the Online Safety Act. How to ensure that there is effective enforcement in any future system and examine the case for tools, including fines and business disruption measures, and we will keep up the pace.

I can commit to including clear timelines for implementation in that plan, and we will keep them as short as possible, factoring in the possible need for legislation subject to parliamentary timing. I know that my fellow Ministers will welcome the noble Lady Baroness Bertin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. That is actually a very big announcement that's just been made. Thank you. Because you acknowledged Thank you. Because you acknowledged parity, and I hope that you will therefore be acknowledging therefore be acknowledging regulation, using regulation and making sure that we absolutely do create that level playing field. So create that level playing field. So thank you. I just want to acknowledge that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turning to amendment 300, while we accept the intended aim of this amendment, we can't accept the proposed approach. The part of the amendment relating to the withdrawal of consent and its application to professional entertainment contracts has a number of practical implications. Where content is produced legally, as with the wider film industry, the rules and regulations governing its use are usually a commercial matter to be agreed between the performer and the production company, taking into account the intellectual property framework.

I also add that much of the content captured by this proposed offence is already illegal. The creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material and sharing an intimate image without consent are already criminal offences. The law is also crystal clear about the distribution of indecent images of children. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978. The UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child under 18.

That being said, and as I said earlier this evening, we do accept that there is harmful material, including content that is non-consensual, and displays child sexual abuse that remains online and that is not good enough. So whilst we cannot support the amendment today, we are keen once again to work with the noble Lady further to consider existing best practice in the area and where there are gaps, how these can be filled. The outcome of the work on parity to which we have committed today will also influence consideration of how this amendment could be regulated.

Turning as quickly as I can to adults role playing as children. Amendment 303 300 a I understand that the noble Lady is trying to tackle pornography, which features a person who is over 18. But but the viewer sees the person as a child. The imagery may feature markers of childhood, which creates a more sinister undertone to it. Indeed, as a noble Lady described, there could be props used that would suggest this. We absolutely agree it needs addressing, but I know, however, from conversation she and I have had, that it will come as no surprise to the noble Lady that we can't accept the way in which she is attempting to address this behaviour.

The criminal law on indecent images of children is clear, comprehensive and well understood by the public and the courts. Under the Protection of Children Act, a person is taken to be a child if it appears from the evidence as a whole that they are under 18, and in the case of pseudo photographs, where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is under the age of 18, they're taken to be a child, even where some of the physical characteristics are those of an adult.

So the criminal law does already capture cases which appear to show a child. The prosecution do not have to show the actual age of the person concerned. It's a question of fact for the tribunal, whether it's magistrates or the jury, as to whether this appears to be a child. We are concerned that the noble Lady's amendment creates uncertainty and risks limiting successful law enforcement operations under the existing legislation, because it is important to remember that the purpose of this suite of legislation is to criminalise indecent images of actual children, and to help identify and swiftly safeguard children who are subject to sexual abuse.

When an indecent image of a child is detected by a police, part of their operational investigation is to identify and locate that child. They will consider, for example, does that person need removing from an unsafe home environment, or do they need protecting from a family member or a friend? Expanding the scope of this act to include adults who can and have consented to make pornography risks diverting resources for the police to try and distinguish children from adults who are pretending to be children.

This risks delaying unnecessary safeguarding activity and leaving real children at continued risk of harm. I do not say any of this with the intention of criticising what the noble Lady is trying to do. I want to be absolutely clear about that. We wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment behind the troubling issues her amendment seeks to address, but I hope I've been clear as to why the government cannot support our amendment today. But having said this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because already they are the, you know, law enforcement will be duty bound to investigate any duty bound to investigate any material that may contain a child. So I do not believe that amendment would suddenly create a whole load of law. You know, activity that of law. You know, activity that could prevent could stop the protection of children. I just don't accept that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't accept that. Is the concern expressed by law enforcement that it would divert resources from what they're doing resources from what they're doing at the moment. We will consider this issue as part of our rapid work on parity, and we will also consider the issue as part of our broader work on reviewing the criminal law. I do not underestimate the importance of all these matters. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for the length of time it has taken me to deal with them.

My hope is that your Lordships will take the commitments that I have made and the government amendments. I have moved as a sign of the government's genuine intention. Take it from me. We will go further. But we must get these issues right. In the meantime, every respect. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. And I beg to move.
20:18
20:19
20:19
20:20
20:30
20:30
20:31
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – report stage:Division:Amdt:274
-

division, and I will advise and I will advise the. Order, order and I will advise the House when voting is open. My Lords, voting is now The The question, my Lords. The question is that amendment 274 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. My Lords. The My Lords. The question My Lords. The question is My Lords. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that My Lords, there have voted contents 192, not contents 155. So the 192, not contents 155. So the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this seems to be My Lords, this seems to be a convenient time to take to break for dinner break business. We will therefore not return to the bill therefore not return to the bill before 2121. I beg to move that report. Be adjourned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. Be adjourned. The question is that further consideration on report be now consideration on report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Order! My Lords, I pause for a short time, whilst noble Lords who may wish to do so, do so as quickly and quietly as possible. And when I sit down. Repeated Repeated a Repeated a statement
20:42
20:42
None Portrait Statement: Middle East
-

20:43
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, repeat the Prime Minister's statement and update the Minister's statement and update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region. And our response. My Lords, the United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region.

That has been the long standing position of successive British governments. President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain's national interest, and that is what I have done and I stand by it. But it is clear that Iran's outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region.

They have launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries who did not attack them, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. And overnight, Hezbollah, as Iran's proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel seeking to escalate the war. There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region, residents and families on holiday and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole house and the whole country, and our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran's actions.

On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There are 300 British personnel on that base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. And last night a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties on that strike. It's important to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear, the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision we have taken in our assessment.

The drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran's aggression towards Britain and our interests is long standing, and that's why we'd already ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level. It is very clear that the death of the Supreme Leader will not stop Iran from launching these strikes. In fact, their approach is becoming even more reckless and more dangerous to civilians. They are working ruthlessly and deliberately through a plan to strike not only military targets, but also economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties.

That is a situation we face today and to which we must respond. I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran's attacks, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty, the highest duty of my office, to protect British lives. And that is why we have put British jets in the air. Typhoons and F-35s, as part of a coordinated defensive operations which were already successfully intercepted.

Iranian strikes, including taking out a drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq, housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women putting themselves in harm's way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect, but it is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source in their storage depots, or at the launches.

The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because they have the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians and putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that had not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joined the US and Israeli offensive strikes.

The basis of our decision is the collective self-defence of long standing friends and allies and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have published a summary of our legal advice, which sets this out very clearly, and we will keep the decision under review. We are not joining these strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran's capability to fire missiles and drones at source.

I've been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region. To that end, be in no doubt the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, they murdered thousands of their own people, the full horror of which is still hidden from the world. For decades, they have sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Their proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea.

They're facilitated Russia's barbarism in Ukraine, and the regime's tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it's clear the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. That remains a primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US. And ultimately this will be achieved at the negotiating table in this dangerous moment.

Our first thoughts were the citizens in the region, friends, family members, constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for all those involved and for communities across this country. We ask in all British citizens in the region to register their presence so we can provide the best possible support and for them to monitor Foreign Office travel advice, which has been regularly updated across much of the region. Airspace remains closed and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.

The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground and we and we are in close contact with the travel industry and governments in the region, including our friends in the UAE. Given the concentration of British nationals in the country, and we are looking at all options to support our people, we want to ensure they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible.

The FCDO phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs and others to discuss individual cases. We also reaching out to communities across the UK, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place. The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the house in coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home.

They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up the prices on the supermarket shelves at the pump, dividing communities, bringing anxiety and fear. That's why how we operate on the world stage matters so much. We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable thought through plan. I say again, we will not involved in initial strikes on Iran and we will not join offensive action now.

But in the face of Iran's barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people and the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, to prevent the situation spiralling further and support a return to diplomacy. It's the best way to protect British interests and British lives, and that is what this government is doing. And I commend this statement to the House today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I do thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important statement. Now, I must say, as someone who spent many say, as someone who spent many years studying the history of that region, I have the very profoundest region, I have the very profoundest respect for the history and culture of Iran, which over millennia actually has been one of the actually has been one of the greatest pillars of world civilisation. But since the
20:52
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
Islamist takeover in 1979, its extraordinary people have suffered horrendously for the last 37 years, under the pitiless hand of the late Unlamented dictator Khamenei. The statement implies that for our greatest ally, the United States, to act against this abhorrent regime was unlawful. It conspicuously offers no support for the strikes. And indeed, it says repeatedly, we will do nothing like them. So can the noble Baroness Lord Privy Seal please set out the government's legal position on the US action? It's simply not enough for them to say that that's for the US to explain that frankly, as a cop out and the noble Baroness has the leading expert sitting alongside her, can she say also why our basis could not be used to protect us and Israeli citizens when they were under attack, but can be used now when other nations are attacked? Is this an example of what they call two tier international law? My Lords, didn't the savage slaughter of thousands of unarmed youngsters crying for freedom a few weeks ago tell us anything about the brutality of this regime? Wasn't that mass murder unlawful? My Lords? Didn't the fact that this regime has conducted multiple plots on British soil, as we just heard, sway the government? Didn't? The fact that the Iranian regime is the world's foremost sponsor of international terrorism tell the government anything? Wasn't mass terror paid for by Iran for decades unlawful? Hadn't the government noticed that the declared objective of the regime was to annihilate the world's only Jewish state? Didn't it? Here Khamenei praising the massacre of innocent Jews, that dreadful October the 7th, was that in accordance with international law? Yes.

And, my Lords, were we simply to watch and let this regime acquire nuclear weapons and the missiles to target them on Britain? Was an attempt to stop that by the USA unlawful? As my noble friend, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the shadow Attorney General, has said, if the doctrines of international law are unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, if they tie the hands of democracies while forcing us to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. My Lords, the statement calls for negotiation.

And of course, that's the ideal. But the Khomeini regime faked negotiation, reneged on what was negotiated, played for time to develop nuclear weapons, and even now repudiates a negotiated course. Sometimes in human affairs, there comes a deciding moment when we're called upon to take a choice where we stand. Opinions may legitimately differ, but the choice has to be made. Last week was such a time, and history will record that when our US ally asked us for help, this government chose to say no.

Our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by the US. My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition has also made it very clear that we on this side also stand with the US and Israel for taking necessary action to defend themselves and nations across the world from a regime steeped in blood and terror. For decades. Where were we when our American allies called last week? We didn't just pass by on the other side. We stood in their way and said they could not use their bases.

They have noticed, my Lords, they have noticed. We welcome the fact, as the noble Baroness has told us today, that the government has changed its mind on the use of our bases, albeit after far too long. But can the noble Baroness explain to the House how we will know if each US combat mission is, as a statement puts it, in line with a specific and limited defensive purpose? Can she set out to us how in practice this will be determined mission by mission.

And by whom? My Lords, the reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran on its neighbours in the last days didn't reveal. They simply confirmed the regime's well laid, aggressive plans and intent. Now, as the noble Baroness has said, the thoughts of the whole House will be with our brave servicemen and women and those of other allied nations, many under attack by Iran, who are now engaged in action. Like the noble Baroness. We salute them and we think of their families. I also thank the government for setting out in some detail the actions they are taking to support and protect the hundreds of thousands of our citizens caught in areas under Iranian attack.

Many people in the house will have family or friends in the Gulf. I certainly do, and I know firsthand of their current anxiety. Will the noble Baroness keep the House informed of the development of any contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens? And by the way, on another issue, does the noble Baroness, except that in the light of the clear evidence of the world's strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and in the context of a major conflict in the Middle East, the bill proposing the naive deal to surrender the Chagos Islands cannot proceed.

Yes, my Lords, I have often from this Dispatch Box a noble Lords opposite, will now praised the role of the Prime Minister on the international stage. I have spoken here highly of his record in support of Ukraine, so it was sad to hear this morning the president of the United States, feeling he had to be so critical of the Prime Minister on both the strikes over the weekend and the Chagos deal. My Lords, this is indeed a time of trial. Our allies and the wider world will judge of what we are made, and we must be decisive, resolute, implacable in the face of this barbarous terror regime.
20:59
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes, this is an unlawful war, >> Yes, this is an unlawful war, and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defence Department. The statements from the president today have not added clarity. The government is right not to have allowed the use of UK assets for offensive use. The US and Israeli government actions have put UK lives at risk, including our personnel. Ayatollah Khamenei headed a homicidal regime which brutalised its own people and denied basic human rights and was deeply destabilising from the Gulf through to central Africa and Sudan.

But changes of regimes offer the people of that country not the interests of another, simply because that other has military prowess. In June 2025, after the bombing of Iran by the US and IDF forces, we were told that that bombing was successful, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said, I quote our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons. IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Zamir said, I quote, we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back years, I repeat, years, unquote.

Special envoy from the US, Steve Witkoff said. Then reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve our objective is just completely preposterous, unquote. But this week, he said they are probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb making material, and that's really dangerous, unquote. So we've been told that threats were imminent and they were not. The victims of the war are already clear from the terrible scenes now being investigated by the United States and com of the bombing of a girls school to the civilians in Lebanon and beyond, there is every chance the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly yet again.

Another conflict where protections of civilians is being set aside. And this is deplorable. Will the leader state that His Majesty's Government stresses that protection of civilians in conflict is mandated in international humanitarian law? It is not discretionary. These are early days of this action, and we are yet to know the full consequences. And they are hard to predict. They are even harder to predict, since what our government considers our closest ally, who, incidentally, was criticising us yesterday, is led by an untrustworthy president.

He could halt the attacks when he wishes because the objectives have not been outlined and he could claim a mission accomplished as he defines himself. And he has said enough since the weekend to suggest that he would blame the Iranian population themselves if they didn't rise up to topple a military regime rising up in streets they are fearful of being in because they are being bombed. There is also no clear end game. We don't know if the United States wants a democratically appointed government, as the protesters do, or a more amenable revolutionary ideological government and managed transition to a more acceptable dictator.

United States Senator Cotton yesterday said that he hoped that those who could become the leaders of Iran will be, quote, auditioning to be the next Dolce Rodriguez fine to be a dictator, but one amenable to the United States. This is not what the civilian protesters want either, and they are likely to be let down twice. Regime could topple after a tipping point. If there is no internal security, then we'll see. Form some form of Libya fication that doesn't necessarily bring stability to the region, or there could be an internal factional struggle with internal strife which civilians will pay the penalty.

The Iranian regime is one of immense deep state with enormous state capture, which I previously described as homicidal but not suicidal. And we don't know either how long it would take to exhaust its missile and drone stockpiles and the ability to replenish them, either. So on the one hand, it's OK to be jingoistic, but we also have to be clear eyed that there's not necessarily a clear end game to what has been started, and that is not necessarily in our interests or that of our Gulf allies.

And there's likely to be continuous economic instability, both for the trade routes and for energy and for trade, especially in our key economic areas. Economic relationships in the hub in the Gulf. We do know that the longer this continues, the likelihood of economic costs to the United Kingdom increases. People impacted either businesses or individuals, or tourists are likely to be disproportionately affected. And with the insurance cover now likely to be disrupted in both shipping and tourist, can the Minister can the leader state what contingencies we have in place for the likelihood of sharp increases in insurance and shipping, as well as the cost of our of our own personnel and our own citizens within the Gulf? And can the leader give more indications of what contingency might be for the evacuation of British nationals in the area, with new leadership in Hamas and Hezbollah, not their eradication, and now in Iran adds to greater unpredictability within the region, and it is likely to perpetuate greater economic instability.

That said, I agree with the statement. There is no justification for any instances of increased anti-Semitism or Islamophobia in Britain as a result of this, and I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on ensuring that all parts of our society have the right levels of reassurance and protection. Finally, I do wish to state something which has not been referenced in the statement which is going on. Whilst this conflict is apparent in the West Bank, in Palestine we see continuing violence and growing concerns of what may well be an active annexation.

So what representations at this time of tension with regards to Iran is His Majesty's Government making to the Israeli government that annexation of the West Bank is contrary to UK policy? It is right that we have recognised a Palestinian state, that there must be a Palestine to recognise.
21:06
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it's an interesting >> My Lords, it's an interesting set of questions. Has the completely diametrically opposed views, but I think there is one views, but I think there is one thing the whole house unites around is that abhorrence of the Iranian regime. And I don't think there's regime. And I don't think there's any dissent there of our views. I I'd slightly puzzled by the noble Lords, Drew's comments. I think he probably took the lead from his leader in the House of Commons.

Let's be clear, there are two separate decisions made in this regard, and we have always said we will comply with international law. And so when we are asked our second decision, we've asked to allow our bases to be used for defensive support. We could agree to do so. And the noble Lords comment seemed to say that whatever the Americans decide, whatever they asked for, we should accede to their requests. I think we have to take a more measured approach to that for two reasons.

One, we have to act at all times in what is in the interests of this country and in the national interest. And secondly, if we are asking British military, British troops to go into action, they need to be assured there is a clear legal mandate for them to do so. To do anything else would be an irresponsible attitude. And the noble Lord says how? What's been happening over the last 14 years? I don't recall his party in any of those 14 years saying that he was supporting military action against the regime, but the request was made.

We denied the request for we denied to take part in offensive action. That is not within our remit to do so, but on defensive action when British citizens are under threat and we are being requested to by allies in the region because of the nature of the retaliation and response from the Iranian government. So I think that is completely clear, a completely rational and sensible approach to take in the national interest of our country. The noble Lord asked if we'll keep the House informed of any measures regarding evacuation.

Yes, of course I've got some. I've got some further information today about the number of British nationals that have registered their presence already, the work of the Foreign Office and keeping in contact with them and giving advice is of the utmost importance to do so. The what is clear in the action that we are taking is to protect our British nationals. And I don't know if the expression has been used before, but it's important we don't just attack the arrows but the archers, and that's why the focus is on those launch sites where missiles can be launched onto our friendly countries, onto British nationals.

And so to protect them, the noble Lord Purvis asked a number of questions. I think most of these questions are for the American government rather than me to answer. It's not the policy of this government to have action for regime change. She said that the American government said that we have not said that. But his wider points he made, yes, the obligation is to protect civilians is mandated. You can't opt out of that obligation. It's not discretionary obligation. Of course. It is always the case, as we've seen already, that civilians are killed, civilians are injured during military action, and we've seen that happen already.

We've also seen American soldiers have been killed, and we've seen we've seen military from other countries. We saw the Kuwait Kuwaiti flights today that American soldiers were injured, but they have survived. I understand, but that is not discretionary. But the he also asked about economic instability. Can I just say this is something that the Treasury will keep under review at all times? It's obviously a priority going forward. He also asked two other points. One was about anti-Semitism and anti Islamophobia in this country as well.

And yes, he would have heard in the statement some of the measures that are being taken. But I think as a duty on us all to actually as I said before, it's a it's a responsibility on every member of this House to act in that regard and to to call it out whenever and wherever it happens. But undoubtedly, there is concerns among the Jewish community, as we've heard already. And you also asked about Palestine. Well, he would be aware of recognition of Palestine as well.

But whenever there is a very serious incidence in one country, in one part of the world, that doesn't abdicate US responsibilities in other areas where there are numerous areas of conflict or tension, and we should actually take care in how we respond, but also in the way that a well, I think three points one, it has to be in the national interest, protect British citizens and abide by international law.
21:11
21:12
21:13
21:13
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
The legal work you need to do >> The legal work you need to do for two points, I'd raise the noble Lord. One I completely and utterly, totally reject his characterisation of the decision that's been taken. There were two separate decisions. And if he thinks it is acceptable to say to British soldiers and our military, yes, you can go into action without a clear international legal basis to do so, then I think he's mistaken. So we're quite clear on that one, and I'm absolutely confident in the decisions taken by the Prime Minister and my noble friend.

The Attorney General's advice on the IRGC. Actually, I was talking to my noble friend Lord Coaker about this earlier because he remembers discussing this when the party opposite voted against the IRGC. He did. I think he was the only member on his side to vote with us on that side. But let's be clear, there has and he will know that we don't comment on sort of ongoing discussions on these things or what's under consideration. But perhaps there's something I can say that will help him.

He will be aware of Jonathan Hall QC, who's the independent reviewer of terrorism and the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation. I don't know if he's aware of his report. Last year, when he made the point that applying existing counter-terrorism legislation to what a state threats is, is actually fit for purpose, as it should be, and that creates challenges. So he's made recommendations. It was a standalone report he produced last year. We are committed to implementing all of those recommendations.

If you'd like more information on that, I can supply it. I think he was unaware, but that takes us a step forward. Not talking about particularly the IRGC, but how we respond to state threats in dealing with issues like prescriptions. So that will be reported on that. Back to the House on that in due course.
21:15
21:16
21:17
21:17
21:18
21:19
21:21
21:21
21:22
21:23
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I think as we sit in >> My Lords, I think as we sit in this house and we feel safe and secure, our thoughts must be with those across the region, but those across the region, but particularly in Iran, who will be fearing about what comes next and what their lives are going to be in the weeks to come. I do think, you know, it's not for us to urge anyone to fight back, but I think there will be a natural reaction from people who have been protesting.

But we she's right to say the caution. If we look at how many protesters in Iran have been killed, who have been murdered by the security forces, and we realise that how dangerous this has become for them. So appreciate it's there are lessons to be learned from what's happened in the past. And I do agree with her, the survival instinct of the regime. But I think it's the right action to take to try and remove the weaponry they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have in order to wreak havoc on others, including their own people. Labour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour. Labour, Labour. My Lords, I'd like to thank my hon. Friend for her wisdom and the statement that her wisdom and the statement that she's made. Among the many important questions this conflict important questions this conflict raises is the prospects for a two state solution. The statement about the Middle East. It's important to the Middle East. It's important to look at all the cause of this. The core elements of this debate. One part of the two state solution must be the building of an effective Palestinian state that has the rule
21:25
21:25
21:27
21:27
21:28
21:29
21:29
21:31
21:32
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

>> The report of the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. I'm will be considered. Quite the.
21:32
21:32
21:34
None Portrait Amendment:275 Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-

Clement-Jones, Lady Kidron and Lord Pannick. I also want to apologise to the House, the last minute regrouping of this amendment. It is regrouping of this amendment. It is a vital amendment, and I wanted to ensure it could be brought back at Third Reading. The amendment Third Reading. The amendment mandates that the Secretary of State create a mechanism where sites have to have clear and accessible reporting systems for content that a person believes to breach. Section 66 B of the Sexual Offences Act on the sharing of non-consensual intimate images.

It vitally mandates internet services to remove or de-indexed this content within 48 hours. Critically, it includes sanctions for internet services to remove duplicates. Last year, I was contacted by Christina Trevanion, host of Bargain Hunt. Christina spoke to me about the ongoing trauma she faced trying to remove non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes of herself from the internet. She is one of many brave survivors of intimate image abuse who spoke out and inspired my 48 hour takedown amendment, she said. It's too late for me, but I do not want my daughters to grow up in a world where posting a photograph of themselves online puts them at risk.

The amendment was based on the precedent set in the USA with the Take It Down Act, in itself inspired by the incredible advocacy of a young woman called Alison and her mum Anna. Alison's mum Anna described to me the unending trauma her daughter suffered, knowing that for the rest of her life, those pictures could be there. Anna's biggest priority was getting those images taken down from the internet. For victims like Christina and Alison, every day that goes by is another day when they live in constant fear that their content will be viewed, downloaded or reshared in an ongoing cycle of revictimization.

I'm delighted that the government has agreed to work with me on this amendment. I thank the noble. I thank the noble Baroness. The Minister knows how passionate I am about this one. I'm very pleased they have committed to bring back their own amendment at Third Reading, which will get the exact details of in a second. I am very keen to secure an undertaking that we can return to this issue at Third Reading, if for any reason the government does not follow through and bring an amendment back in time for Third Reading, I reserve the right to bring back my amendment 275, covering all elements I have raised on this important issue.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her collaboration and determination to work together on this. I know she is committed to getting it right. I would like to confirm that the government will provide an undertaking to bring back amendments at Third Reading, to address the 48 hour takedown requirement of intimate images, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 89. Insert the new clause. The
21:36
21:37
21:38
21:39
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 276, I understand, is consequential. Move. understand, is consequential. Move. Formally, the question is that amendment 276 be agreed to. As many amendment 276 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. as that opinion will say content. And many others of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 277 Baroness Doocey not moved. Amendment 278 and 279 Baroness Levitt moved En bloc.

The question is that amendment 278 and 279 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 281 Baroness Levitt moved formally. The question is that amendment 281 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 281 a Baroness Bertin not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I will. The House on this. Yes. I want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House on this. Yes. I want to test the the. Yes. The opinion of the House. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House. Sorry. My amendment 281 a moved formally. The question is that this formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Content the contrary not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content the contrary not content. Not content. The question will be decided by
21:41
21:42
21:51
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

Amendment 282 and 283. Baroness Levitt. Moved. En bloc. The question is that. Amendment 282 and 283 be agreed to as en bloc. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. content. The contrary not content. The. I believe the contents have it. Amendment 284 Baroness O'Loan not Amendment 284 Baroness O'Loan not moved. Not moved. Amendment 285 to 288 Baroness Levitt moved En bloc. The question is that amendments 285 to 288 be agreed to.

As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 289 has been withdrawn. Amendment 290 to 295 Baroness Levitt moved en bloc. The question is that amendment 290 to 295 be agreed to. En bloc as many as that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 296 Baroness Levitt moved formerly amendment proposed page 330, line 21 to insert the words, but amendment 296 A as an amendment to amendment 296, Baroness O'Loan not moved.

The question is that 296 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 297 to 297 D Baroness Levitt moved formerly. The question Levitt moved formerly. The question is that amendments 297 to 297 D. No, I'm sorry. I'll call them individually. I apologise. Amendment 297 Baroness Levitt moved formerly. The question is that amendment 297 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say content.

The contrary, not content. The The contrary, not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Amendment 297 a Baroness Bertin not. 297 eight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

297 eight. Yeah, come on to that in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, come on to that in a moment. Yes. Amendment 297 A as an moment. Yes. Amendment 297 A as an amendment to 297 is being replaced by manuscript amendment tabled by manuscript amendment tabled today, which clarifies where it amends amendment 297. Baroness Bertin do you wish to move amendment 290 seven? A I assume you're not manuscript amendment 297 a Baroness Bertin.
21:55
21:55
21:56
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – report stage:Division:297AA
-

as soon as voting is open. Voting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chloe. Chloe. What Chloe. What does Chloe. What does it Chloe. What does it do? Chloe. What does it do? Not Hold Hold on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, my Lords. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that amendment 297 A be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as that opinion will say content. Not content. The contents will go to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to the left by the bar. Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. There have voted contents 144,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents 144, not contents 143. Oh, so the contents have it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment 297 Amendment 297 B Amendment 297 B is Amendment 297 B is an Amendment 297 B is an amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 297 B is an amendment to amendment 297 Baroness Bertin not moved. Amendment 29C as an amendment to amendment 297 not moved. Amendment 297 as an moved. Amendment 297 as an amendment to amendment 297 not moved. The question is that moved. The question is that amendment 297, as amended, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 29A Baroness Bertin not moved. Amendment 289 Baroness Bertin move.

Sorry 2299298 Baroness Bertin move. Sorry 2299298 and 299. Sorry. Amendment 300 Baroness Bertin. Yes, I intend to test the opinion of the House and consent checks on porn companies are the very, very minimum
22:07
22:08
22:09
22:18
None Portrait
-

move.
22:19
22:19
22:29
None Portrait Amendment:g301 Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

>> We've dealt with some unattractive topics so far already this evening we're about to embark on another one. I rise to move on another one. I rise to move government amendments 301302451 and 465 in my name, which deal with the unpalatable but very serious question of animal sexual abuse. My question of animal sexual abuse. My Lords, these amendments respond directly to concerns raised in both houses, and I'm very grateful to many of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lords Lord Black, Lord Blencathra and Lord Pannick and Danny Chambers MP, all of whom argued persuasively that the current offence does not reflect the full range of abhorrent behaviour which we believe should be prohibited.

I particularly like to pay tribute to David Martin and Paula Boyden from the Lynx group, who met with me and provided who met me and provided the government with further evidence. My Lord, these amendments will strengthen the law on sexual offences involving animals. We are replacing the existing offence of intercourse with an animal, with an offence of sexual activity with an animal. The new offence is deliberately broader than the existing offence. It captures intentional touching of an animal, whether living or dead, and where that touching is sexual, and where an individual knows or is reckless as to whether what is touched is an animal, this better reflects the reality of this kind of behaviour and ensures that the law is fit for purpose.

The offence will trigger the sex offender notification requirements, and I hope that that will reassure your Lordships that the government takes this seriously. This, in part explains our reason for resisting amendment 390. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Black. His amendment seeks to bring those convicted of a wide range of animal welfare offences into the statutory, multi-agency public protection arrangements, known colloquially as by the acronym MAPPA. MAPPA management is reserved for the most serious offenders who pose the greatest risks to our communities.

It is important that scarce resources are targeted at the most dangerous and serious offenders, and the government is of the view that the current arrangements achieve this and there is already provision to manage the most concerning offenders under MAPPA on a discretionary basis. Of course, those those convicted of sexual offences against animals should be subject to notification requirements as they currently are under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act and they will continue to be, my Lords. Causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is an offence under section four of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is subject to a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment and or an unlimited fine following a conviction.

The court may also ban the offender from keeping animals or certain types of animals, and or order that their animals are removed from them. The noble Lord Lord Black amendment risks jurisdictional overlap between domestic abuse and animal welfare law. Moreover, it may cause the enforcement responsibility to become unclear and public disclosure of which the government believes should be restricted to appropriate organisations. Beholds all relevant information for prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act. I beg to move.
22:33
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 94, insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> I'd like to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to. Speak to amendment 390 in my name, to which my noble friend Lord Blencathra has added his own. He is Blencathra has added his own. He is an exceptional champion of animal welfare, and it's an honour, as always, to have his support. I'd like to first to speak to Government Amendment 301. In the name of the noble Lady, the Minister. I'm very grateful to her for her remarks. We had, as she said, a very good debate on this subject, a committee also, I think quite late at night, if I recall, the government clearly listened very carefully to the arguments and to the strength of feeling in the House and has acted upon it.

So I am most grateful to the noble Lady to for meeting me, along with my colleagues from across the sector, especially as she said, David Martin and Paula Boyden, to whom I also pay tribute for their tireless work and insight to discuss in some depth these issues, and also to her officials who have worked on this. The lady noble Lady Baroness Hayman of Ullock has also been extremely supportive and helpful. I welcome the government's amendment, which goes a long way to dealing with the issues I highlighted in committee and supported.

This is a really important step forward, both in terms of animal welfare and in recognising the link between animal sexual abuse or ASA and domestic abuse and violence. There are 1 or 2 matters on which I'd just like briefly to press the noble Lady first. I think it's disappointing that there are no powers of disqualification for individuals convicted of ASA, or specific powers to deprive the offender of any animals they own at the time of their conviction. The best way to protect animals is to ensure that those inclined to commit such despicable crimes are banned from owning them, or having access to them.

Now, the noble Lady may argue that this would follow on from a sexual harm prevention order, but as I understand it, such orders are only available if the court imposes a custodial sentence of two years or more, and the vast majority of these cases will not meet that threshold. There may be other mechanisms through which a perpetrator could be deprived of the ownership of the animal they abused, but that will require the courts to remember to do this. And that can't always be taken for granted.

The best way to ensure that is to have something on the face of this legislation. But perhaps, if that's not possible, the noble Lady could kindly make clear the government's intentions in this area for future reference. Second, I think it's unfortunate that there is a discrepancy between the maximum sentence for physical animal abuse, which is five years, and for ASA, which will be set at two years. This could be said to convey the message that animal sexual abuse is less of a crime than physical animal abuse.

I'm absolutely sure that's not what the government intends. So again, perhaps the noble Lady could just clarify the reasons for the discrepancy. Finally, the amendment doesn't deal comprehensively with the issues around the possession and sharing of animal pornography. And here too, there are no powers of disqualification or deprivation for imagery offences involving a Lord Trees a technical points, but they're nonetheless very important ones, and I'd be very grateful if we could get the noble Ladies views on the record.

Ideally, there may be some way of sorting them out at Third Reading, and enable lady and her officials would have my strong support in doing so. Having said all that, I'm not going to make the perfect the enemy of the best. This amendment is real progress in dealing with this vile crime of animal sexual abuse, and I'm very grateful to the government. Let me turn to my amendment 390, which is on the linked subject, which seeks to create notification requirements for people convicted of animal cruelty.

It's analogous in many ways to the requirements relating to the sex offenders register. As we discussed at committee, there is a real and frightening link between cruelty towards animals and violence towards a partner. As domestic abuse charities have consistently made clear, those who maim or kill animals often go on to become involved in incidents of domestic violence and in the worst cases, murder. One of the early warning signs of an abusive partner is the way they treat pets, which is why it's one of the questions on the dash, the so-called dash, the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment routinely used by police across the UK to determine a victim's risk of further harm.

The evidence is as overwhelming and alarming as it is painful to read. Pets are often the first to be abused and harmed as perpetrators of domestic abuse seek to coerce, control or punish. Refused research undertaken by refuge for pets, which does wonderful work in this area in association with Dogs Trust, found that almost 9 in 10 households which experienced domestic abuse have said that their animals were also abused by the perpetrator. In 49% of cases, animals appallingly and tragically are killed by the abuser.

A study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that animal abusers are five times as likely also to harm humans. Unsurprisingly, 70% of people who have committed animal abuse also have criminal records for violence, for property or drugs offences or disorderly behaviour. My Lords, beyond these statistics, horrific though they are on their own, is the very real human face of the victims, one of which was a lady called Holly Bramley.

Holly was murdered at the age of just 26 by her husband, Nicholas Metson. In 2023. Metson was convicted of her murder the following year and sentenced to life in prison before she was so tragically robbed of her life, Holly was subject to horrendous abuse by Metson, who had also been reported to the police for repeated extreme cruelty to her beloved pets. That was a red flag for the tragic events that followed. If only anyone had known about it.

Holly's courageous mother, Annette Bramley, is now campaigning for a new nationwide protection register to identify those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals in a bid to stop this sort of tragedy ever happening again. As Anita said, had there been a register with medicines name on it that we could have looked at, perhaps Holly might have been here today. This campaign for what is dubbed Holly's Law is already by a backed by a petition with 50,000 signatures on it.

The Member for South Holland and the Deepings. In the other place, Sir John Hayes has been a strong campaigner for action and I pay tribute to the tenacious work he has been doing in gathering support from across the political spectrum for something to be done. Now, I know the government recognises the link between animal abuse, particularly of pets and domestic violence. I hope very much that they will. Therefore, despite what the noble Lady has said, see the strength in this amendment which would provide a vital resource both individuals like Holly and for their families who may be in danger, and also for law enforcement.

It's a simple change, my Lords, which could help thousands of potential victims and ensure that no more families like Holly's tragically have to suffer the same anguish because vital signs are missed. I know what the here what the noble Lady has said, and I take her points on board. I hope she might think perhaps again at some point about this. I'm clearly not going to take this any further forward this evening. And perhaps if she's unable to do so as part of this bill, maybe we could look at it again with regard perhaps to measures that come out from the government's animal welfare strategy in due course, my my Lords, I repeat the point.

I'm very grateful to the government for the action that has been taken. My Lords.
22:41
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Well, at least we should be grateful we're dealing with this matter. Well, after the dinner matter. Well, after the dinner break, I rise to support my noble friend's amendment and also to support Government Amendment 301, which is a big improvement on the current law, but very disappointed that it omits some of the essential features which the original new clause 316, proposed by noble Lord Black of Brentwood, had advocated. Now, my noble friend, the Minister, sorry, the noble Lady. The Minister is a very talented lawyer.

She's an excellent addition to this house, and she's a nice person to put. Her amendment is supported by the Noble and learned law, the Lord Pannick, who's also incredibly evil and almost as nice as the as a noble Lady, the Minister. So I'm being brave or rather suicidal when I say that these two lawyers have missed some of the crucial points in amendment 301, as opposed to my noble friend's original new clause, it seems to me that the government amendment here is simply punishing people only for the perversion of the crime itself, and not for the cruelty to the animal concern.

Now, rather than keep saying, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood's original new clauses drafted, I will simply refer to it as 316, which was the number in the Martial Committee. Stage 316. My Lords not only criminalised sexual activity with animals, but it also treated the conduct as an animal welfare matter. It gave courts express powers to remove animals from offenders, direct disposal or rehoming or destruction, and to make disqualification orders tied to Animal Welfare Act. Now government 301 criminalised criminalises sexual activity touching, but does not include those explicit welfare remedies or the statutory link to Animal Welfare Act.

316 had built in mechanism for disqualification orders owning, keeping, dealing, transporting animals and required those orders to be treated as if made under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act of 2006. Government 301 contains no parallel disqualification provisions, so an offender convicted under 301 would not automatically be subject to the same statutory animal control prohibitions, and as other legislation applied, I shall come to the Animal Welfare Act later on in my remarks and say why it's not adequate to deal with this problem.

316 expressly allowed courts to make offenders subject to notification requirements and tied in to the Sexual Offenders Act and the Criminal Justice Act. Amendments for images. Government 301 changes the wording elsewhere, replacing intercourse with sexual activity, but the core 301 text does not set out the same notification or image related court powers 316 explicitly amended the criminal justice and immigration. Some explicitly amended the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008 to add images of sexual activity with animals, and attached the same animal welfare disqualification remedies to convictions.

For those image offences, 301 does not include those parallel amendments. I'm now, as we come to the crux of the matter, the penalties 316 carried higher maximum custodial sentences up to five years on indictment, and therefore signals a higher statutory seriousness and sentencing range than 301, which is just up to two years on indictment. However, when we look at sexual activity with a corpse in a government amendment 302, the maximum penalty will be raised to seven years. I think if I'm right, seven years.

Quite simply, I regard anyone who has sex or sexual activity with a corpse as a filthy, disgusting pervert. It should be locked up. And similarly, I regard anyone who has sex or sexual activity an animal as a filthy, disgusting pair of it should be locked up. So what's the difference? In the case of the corpse, there is no physical harm or hurt to the corpse, although terrible mental harm and distress to relatives and all the rest of us, that someone should desecrate a body in such a despicable way as that.

But in the case of animals, my Lords, there is often physical hurt and severe cruelty to the animal, and often the death of the animal. Unless, of course, the pervert tries it on with a horse or something. But the amendments before us would impose a maximum sentence of just two years on the pervert who has sex with an animal, where the animal may suffer suffering and appalling cruelty, but up to seven years for sex with a corpse where there is no physical suffering to the corpse.

Therefore, my Lords, I think that these sentencing provisions are a wee bit out of kilter. And that is where the noble Lady, the Minister and the noble and learned Lord Lord Pannick tabling government 301, have focussed on punishing the deviant for his animal sex perversion rather than, in addition, penalising for the possible animal cruelty. Now, of course, as a noble Lady, the Minister has said there's a separate offence of animal cruelty, which, where one can get up to five years imprisonment, but that, my Lords, is usually prosecuted by the RSPCA, which in my opinion is entirely the wrong organisation to be prosecuted.

Anyone for a crime. I understand the RSPCA are keen to give it up in any case, and we hand it over to the CPS, the noble Lady. The Minister said there was a danger with my noble friend's amendment of an unclear overlap in the prosecution, but I would submit there is a very unclear overlap at the moment and I cannot see the RSPCA following up on an animal cruelty prosecution when someone has been done for sexual perversion. Quite simply, my Lords, I say that if seven years is appropriate for sex with a dead person, despicable though that is, then two years is grossly inadequate for sex with live animal, which may then have to be put down or killed by the abuser.

Of course, government 301 is better than we had than what we have currently, but we have the two years penalty and that needs to be increased. I hope my I know my noble friend has said to me, look at other things at Third Reading. All I would ask from the government at Third Reading is simply increase the two years, up to five years, make it the same as animal cruelty. And that's not too much to ask for. It's still less than the penalty for a corpse, and I think it's much better than the current draft.
22:48
22:49
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I welcome the government's amendment on sexual activity with an animal. Lord activity with an animal. Lord Black's original amendment in committee shone a fierce but necessary light on the grim intersection of an animal abuse, child exploitation and online coercion. And it's because of that work that we are now debating a meaningful change to the law. What matters now is that the law recognises the overlap between animal sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation and wider patterns of coercive control, and that we respond with tools that are fit for purpose.

In 2026, the government's amendment to section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act replaces the narrow offence of intercourse with an animal with a broader offence of sexual activity with an animal defined by intentional or sexual touching, whether the animal is living or dead. It also ensures that such conduct engages the notification regime in schedule three, so that so those convicted can be managed as sexual offenders. That is a significant and very, very welcome step. However, there remain gaps which need to be addressed.

The terminology widely used in policing and safeguarding is animal sexual abuse, because it captures a spectrum of exploitative acts, including material that's filmed, traded online and used to groom children. These are not marginal cases. They go to the heart of how abusers terrorise both children and partners, including by targeting family pets. Lord Lexden and 390 would introduce notification and offender management requirements for a defined list of serious animal cruelty offences, placing those convicted on a register that would apply to those who cause unnecessary suffering, arrange animal fights, possess extreme pornographic images of animals, damage protected animals, or intentionally engage in sexual activity with an animal, as well as those who cause, coerce or permit another person, including a child, to do so, or who use an animal for sexual gratification.

These are not technical tweaks. Notification and active offender management recognise the strong links between serious animal cruelty and the risk of harm, both to animals and to people, especially children, who may be targeted with these horrific images or forced to participate in their creation. A similar system to the sex Offenders Register would allow the police and probation service to monitor such offenders, and to retain the information needed to manage the risk they pose over time, I freely acknowledge the progress already made, but without the robust notification and management framework envisaged in amendment 390, we will still be asking frontline agencies to deal with extremely dangerous offenders with one hand tied behind their backs.

The cost of getting this wrong is borne not only by animals, but by the children and adults who are terrorised, coerced or groomed through this abuse. So while I welcome the government's amendment as an important milestone, I urge the Minister to go further and to match the full ambition of Lord Bragg proposals on notification and offender management.
22:53
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who spoken to the amendments in this group and I echo amendments in this group and I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her remarks, and for listening and acting on the concerns raised at committee. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of my noble friends, Lord Black and Lord Blencathra, who are tireless champions of animal welfare and have worked effectively with the government.

On this bill. We welcome the introduction of amendment 301 and its consequential amendments, which build upon the debate at Committee stage and update the offence of intercourse with an animal with a wider provision that covers all sexual activity. As we've heard, my Lords, this was an area of law that has long needed updating. As the noble Lord Lord Pannick said, and I am glad that the government is doing it now. My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood raised a couple of concerns which I think were worth highlighting.

He said that to deprive an individual of animals that they own after they've been convicted is a logical next step. And if the primary goal, which I believe is, is to promote the welfare of animals, then the best way to achieve that, it seems to me, would be to ensure that those who have been convicted are prevented from owning or having access to animals. Similarly, he spoke about the discrepancy in sentences and that does not seem to me to make complete sense. As it stands, I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in reply.

And he also mentioned my friend mentioned the possession, possession and sharing of animal pornography. I'm sure there is not much appetite for further discussion of pornography today, but this is an important issue and I would be grateful if the Minister could commit to considering measures to kerbing animal pornography in the future. Turning finally to the amendment in the names of my noble friends, these benches wholly support the intention behind it and the interest of brevity, I won't repeat the statistics, or indeed the arguments raised by my noble friend Lord Black in his speech, but the evidence base is clear and irrefutable.

It seems there is a causal link between animal abuse and domestic abuse and sexual violence. As he highlighted, pets are often used to coerce and control victims of domestic abuse, and there seems to be institutional knowledge within relevant authorities that this is happening, and yet we lack the safeguards to address it. And my noble friend also mentioned the tragic case of of Holly Bramley. The cost benefit of this measure is hard to argue against. A child sex offender register, a current practice that uses the same principle cost just £1.92 million per year, and I would suggest that we would be in similar sums for this.

I of course understand that Milburn is. The Minister may not be able to offer us support to this measure at this point, but I do hope it's something the government will return to in the future.
22:56
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Well said. Well done. >> My Lords. I thank the noble Lords. Lord Black Lord Blencathra Lord Pannick Lord Cameron of Lord Pannick Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lady Lady Ducey for welcoming the amendments today and for the noble Lord Low Lord Blencathra for the flattering remarks that he made. You're very welcome after a long day in your Lordships House, I'm pleased to hear that the amendments have the support, and I do once again, thank those who raise this with us during Committee stage.

This new offence is focussed solely on strengthening the criminal offence relating to sexual abuse of animals. Given the scope of this Bill, my Lords, to establish this offence, the new offence that the government is bringing in today, the prosecution does not have to prove that the animal actually suffered because this was sometimes an obstacle to prosecutions in the past, and this was something that we were persuaded of during the meetings with the noble Lord and those who came with him. But where the conduct has caused the animal to suffer, then the defendant can be charged with an offence.

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for which orders, such as removing the animal from the offender's ownership, rehoming or destroying the animal, or disqualifying the offender from keeping animals are available and it's not an either or. They can both be charged at the same time. It's quite common with criminal behaviour, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The accused could be charged. Charged by whom and prosecuted by whom. Although the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Although the. RSPCA does conventionally prosecute, there's nothing to stop the the Crown Prosecution Service the the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting it that if you had conduct that fell within both, then you wouldn't have two separate prosecutors. Bringing two separate sets of proceedings would be the Crown Prosecution Service. Both. Crown Prosecution Service. Both. However, I do understand the concerns I am committing to continuing to engage with parliamentarians and key stakeholders on this issue. We will keep it under consideration as far as animal pornography is concerned.

Obviously a great worry to everybody, but the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 already criminalises possession of pornographic images depicting extreme acts, which includes intercourse or oral sex with an animal, whether living or dead. We do not believe further legislation is necessary. Turning to the question of sentence, the current offence of intercourse with an animal carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, which we will retain for the new offence.

We do not have evidence at the moment that this is insufficient to enable the courts to deal appropriately with offending of this nature, but we do know that when animal suffering occurs, there are higher penalties available under the animal cruelty legislation, which, as has already been said by the noble Lord Dear Lord Blencathra, provides for sentences of up to five years imprisonment. But once again we will engage with parliamentarians and key stakeholders as to how the existing animal cruelty offences operate alongside the new offence.

With that in mind, I invite the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord Lord Black to withdraw. Sorry, holding the House back this late at night, she says that there's nothing to stop the CPS there's nothing to stop the CPS from prosecuting if they for animal cruelty, if they're prosecuting a cruelty, if they're prosecuting a case of sex, animal cruelty. In that case, will she give a guarantee that the CPS will issue guarantee that the CPS will issue guidance to all their prosecutors? That where a prosecutor is prosecuting for animal sexual abuse prosecuting for animal sexual abuse and discovers animal cruelty, he will he or she will automatically prosecute that and not wait for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

RSPCA to do it. And God knows when. The difficulty. Is. Crown Prosecution Service is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Crown Prosecution Service is a matter of constitutional convention, independent of government, and don't take well to being told what to do by the government. But what to do by the government. But what we can do is raise it with them and ask them if they would look at it again. With that in mind, I invite again. With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord Lord Black to withdraw his amendment and I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is amendment 301 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 302 move formerly Baroness Levitt. The question is amendment 302 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. We now come to a group of amendments 303, in the name of Baroness Goudie and Lord Morrow. I can't see either of them, nor Lord Hacking, who's also in the group, unless anybody else is going to speak to them.

Is everybody happy that they are not moved in that case, amendment 303 not moved 304. Not moved 305. Not moved 306. Not moved 306A and 306B not moved. Which brings us on to amendment 307. Baroness Maclean of Redditch my, my Lords, I am going to speak briefly to the amendment in my name, which is amendment 307, and I spoke to this amendment during Committee stage, and I am bringing it back because I do think it is an important issue.

This
23:01
None Portrait Amdt. 307 Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-

would simply ban any sex offender, convicted sex offender from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I'd like to remind your Lordships that a gender recognition certificate would recognition certificate would enable this individual to legally change their gender from male to female, and that means that they female, and that means that they are can live legally as a woman. That means they can access women's That means they can access women's spaces, they can access single sex spaces. So when we debated this before, the noble Lord Hanson, he responded to to my remarks.

And he also wrote to me, and I thank you very much for the letter that he wrote to me. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on this issue, and I will just make a couple of points here. Why I think this amendment is still needed and why I'm not satisfied with the assurances from the government in my discussions with the government, they have rightly highlighted the tightening up of the requirements that they are making, the safeguards to protect the public when it comes to people changing their names.

Now, that may be obviously the case with the gender recognition certificate. If somebody is changing their gender, they may wish to change their name. It's not necessarily the case, but it could happen. And the government is tightening up those requirements. They're putting enhanced notification requirements. They're they're restricting changes to identity identity documents. And they're they're bringing in closer requirements for police supervision. And all those things are good. But it still does require the sex offender to actually notify the police of any changes to their personal information.

So obviously that's something that happens after the event. It's not a blanket ban in this instance. So the onus is on the criminal to actually go to the police and say I've changed my name. So obviously this is someone that's been a convicted sex offender. So I think many people would say, well, it stands to reason that there's a low level of trust anyway with that individual. So to me that's not a satisfactory answer. I the other objection that the government mentioned when I was bringing forward this and tabling questions, was that the scale of the problem is, is very small, and that that may be true, but the numbers are are as follows.

So almost 10,000 gender recognition certificates have been issued since 2004. And last year alone, 1169 were granted. Now, nobody is saying that every single person that has been granted a gender recognition certificate is a sex offender or criminal. Not at all. But the issue we have here is that we actually don't know if any of them are. So it may be that within that population, there are individuals who have been convicted sex offenders. And I say that it's possible because in the actual process of applying for a gender recognition certificate, and this is something that's been confirmed by the government, a criminal conviction is not something that's disclosed in that process.

So, yes, the panel apparently assesses risk. Apparently they look at a number of factors of that individual, but a criminal conviction is not part of that process. My Lords, I did find that very strange. And I think that various members of the public who've written to me also do find that rather strange. And I just don't think that the argument that this is a small number of people is adequate to reassure the public that we would not have somebody who is has been convicted of a horrific crime, sex with a child, rape, paedophilia could then go on to potentially obtain a gender recognition certificate, a gender recognition certificate.

Now, I would ask you what would be the possible what possible reason could that individual have for changing their gender? I mean, there would only be one reason for that. It would only be because they want to access more vulnerable people and commit horrendous crimes. So to me, it just seems a matter of common sense that you could make the process of applying for this certificate something which has a step that somebody has to go through to say that I am not a convicted sex offender, or the panel should require that evidence in its deliberations to ensure that somebody who has actually been convicted for rape or sexual offences of a serious nature should not be permitted to change their their gender.

The government says that these issues are judged on a case by case basis, but it doesn't keep the information that would really inform those decisions and the questions that I've tabled to the government show that, yes, applicants are not required to provide details of criminal convictions, and in fact, only 6% of those applications are actually refused for any reason. So it does look like it's a process that's reasonably permissive, that people are able to get through it quite easily.

And then, of course, if they have successfully changed their gender and they have changed their name as part of that, then the onus is on them to go to the police. And really, I think that this this is a system that is full of loopholes. And to me, it's not satisfactory to say, well, it's only a small number of individuals. I mean, even one person being able to do that is is is too many. I will just come back very briefly to the case I mentioned before.

There was an absolutely horrendous case perpetrator called Ryan Haley. He sexually abused a woman who a girl who was only 13 years old. She had to go to court and watch him go there and be, you know, be on on trial for sex abuse of a girl aged only 13. And he insisted that everybody called him Natalie Wolf, and he was celebrating his body and his choice. And what about the choice? What about the body of that young girl who'd been abused under horrific circumstances? Why should he get to stand up and be treated as a, as a, as a woman when he committed absolutely disgraceful acts on a young girl only 13? So that's the reason for my amendment, and I look forward to the government's response.
23:07
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The amendment proposed after clause 105. Insert the new clause. The words is printed on the The words is printed on the Marshalled List. I'm grateful to lady McLean for outlining her reasons behind amendment 307, but I reasons behind amendment 307, but I approach this from a somewhat different perspective to her. And I don't just sit behind the fact that there's a very low number of transgender people who are convicted of sex offences. I turn it around and look through the other end of the telescope, which is why I have to say that I found the government's updated guidance, called Crime and Policing Bill Management of Offenders Fact Sheet.

It was extremely helpful. First of all, lady McLean referred to names. It very clearly says that sex offenders may not make name changes without the permission of the police, and if they do not, they are committing an offence. They also have to notify the police, any contact with children at the moment. In the past, that's been whenever they spend 12 hours or more in a household where children are present, they have to notify the address, the date on which they're going to stay.

Residents began. The changes will remove the time threshold and the responsibility not just on the offender, but actually of those involved in monitoring the offender, whether it's the police or probation, mean that any contact with children in the future will be monitored further. If they're away from a previously notified address, that is an offence as the other items are under the Sexual Offences Act. If they don't notify and the police will be watching for people who are on the sexual offences register to make sure that they are complying and I suspect they and probation would be very concerned if there were gaps in appearances and would be chasing them.

So, my Lords, I want to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that any sexual person who is a sex offender on the register, who is caught by the terms of this fact sheet, which is a very good practical document for police, probation and others. Does he believe that the public would be safe from any sex offender, whether they are transgender or not?
23:10
23:11
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, lady McLean, for noble Baroness, lady McLean, for setting out the amendment 307. As she knows, we've discussed this in committee. We have corresponded and I'm grateful for her acknowledgement of that. Amendment 307 seeks to prevent anyone with a conviction for an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from being eligible to obtain a Gender recognition certificate. Now, I'll just say to her, and I've said this in committee, so she will have heard it before.

But I say to her that individuals with sexual offence convictions are already subject to a comprehensive set of post-conviction measures, including the notification requirements, sexual harm prevention orders and oversight through multi-agency public protection arrangements. These arrangements ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present, not according to their gender. And I, in answer to the noble Baroness Brinton question, obviously we believe that the measures are in place, are supportive and are preventative and will manage offenders.

We can never guarantee that offenders do not reoffend, but there is very close. Supervision and oversight through those multi-agency protection arrangements. And again, the noble Lady Baroness Maclean mentioned the number of gender recognition certificates issued. And again, the potential small number of people who commit an offence who have that gender recognition certificate. Most people who have that gender recognition certificate are living their lives legally, honestly, decently and will not come within the remit of this legislation at all.

Now, given the strength of these post-conviction risk management systems that I've just mentioned, together with the very small number of gender recognition certificates issued each year, anyway, the government does not consider a statutory prohibition of this kind to be necessary. The notification regime exists to support risk management, going back again to the point that the noble Baroness Brinton has mentioned, and we remain unconvinced that a blanket restriction on access to a gender recognition certificate would provide any meaningful additional protection. Where a registered sex offender seeks to change their name following a change in gender.

And that goes to the point the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel mentioned with the Scottish example that he has discussed whether or not a gender Recognition certificate is involved in England and Wales. Now. The measures as outlined in clause 98 will apply, and I just say that I hope I know she she has read them, but I think the measures in clause 98 are quite important in that the notification requirements are there, that are relevant to offender, must notify a new name to the police no less than seven days before using it.

That's before using it. The measures are there to ensure that there are reasonable practical steps taken. And in that clause 98, that provides, again, I think, the recognition that the noble Baroness Brinton mentioned that we're putting in place measures before a introduce such a requirement. So. In the nicest possible way, I'm not quite clear how the noble Ladies Amendment is going to strengthen what our measures on the bill and what our well tried, well practised management issues through probation, through the police and through MAPPA arrangements to manage registered sex offenders.

So I can't give her any comfort, I'm afraid. And I would ask you to withdraw the amendment, or I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly take an intervention before I do so. Comments. Just to be very clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comments. Just to be very clear and direct, it would be one less individual for the MAPPA individual for the MAPPA arrangements to to worry about, because that individual would not have changed their gender. They would still be living in their previous gender, and there would be a very straightforward process there, and there would be no risk

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there, and there would be no risk of loopholes. And that person falling outside of the MAPPA arrangements. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I draw her attention to clause 98 of the bill, and clause 98 of the bill says a relevant 98 of the bill says a relevant offender must notify a new name to the police no less than seven days before using it, and again, criminal law. Not if people wish to criminal law. Not if people wish to identify in the way in which they identify. I think they're entitled way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way. I apologise at this time of night, but surely the key point is that once someone has been convicted of a sex offence and they they are on the register either indefinitely or for a particular period, that is the trigger for the monitoring of that offender, whether they have a a trans, a gender recognition certificate or not is almost irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. The noble Lady and I absolutely accept that. But all the monitoring of that individual will happen, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certificate. Again. I did say in my opening remarks,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I did say in my opening remarks, but I will repeat them to enforce what the noble Baroness Brinton has said, that the arrangements in said, that the arrangements in place ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present, not the level of risk they present, not according to their gender. And that's the key point that I put to that's the key point that I put to the noble Lady. The gender issue is, I think, covered by clause 98.

The management of risk is covered, whatever their gender happens to be at any particular time, and people still have the right to change their gender, in my view, identify as they feel right to do so according to their own circumstances. And again, I say to her that the vast majority of people who apply for a gender recognition certificate are not going to be sex offenders. They're going to be ordinary people walking around the streets, living in communities, and not ever even thinking of sex offenders.

And I don't wish to tarnish those individuals who have a full right to live their life as they choose. So I would ask the noble Lady to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw her amendment. Oh yes, I will not detain the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh yes, I will not detain the House, but I will withdraw. I've heard what he said, and I'm unsatisfied. But I will withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave, The amendment is by leave, withdrawn, and amendment 308 Lord Hanson of Flint.
23:19
23:19
23:20
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed page 147, line four. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. List. >> I rise to move. Amendment 313 A but before speaking to the amendment, I wish to thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendments in response to my amendment at Committee stage. These amendments clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with the Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders.

And it will make a real difference to the protection and safety of victims. I'm very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for meeting with me, the Baroness Brinton and the Lord, Lord Russell, and to the Victims Commissioner and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their support. Amendment 313 A is very similar to the one that I moved at Committee stage, supported by the noble Baroness Barran Brinton. It would introduce stalking protection notices ESPN's to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is granted, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices.

In response to the debate on that amendment, my noble friend the Minister suggested that the amendment as drafted would be disproportionate since it would criminalise the breach of a police issued notice without court oversight. I therefore updated the amendment so that a breach of an SPN would not be a criminal offence, ensuring that it reflects the framework for depots. Why is this amendment necessary? Because, my Lords, as highlighted in the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super complaint in their report on experiences of CPS and the courts, the use of full and interim SPOs is currently inadequate, including lack of applications by the police and the time that it takes to obtain one.

Given that both the full and interim orders have to be granted by a court. Victims say that when police do apply for SPOs, the judiciary do not recognise the need for an SPO, particularly if other orders are already in place. In response to the super complaint. HMRC. Highlighted the arduous application process for the police and their frustrations over their inability to issue orders themselves. It called for the government to use the Dabpn framework as a template to legislate for a new stalking protection notice, which, like the Dabpn, would not require an application to the court and could be issued by the police to offer protection.

In stalking cases. The length of delays in cases varies from months to years. For victims of stalking, a delay in taking their case to trial means a continuation of stalking behaviours, especially if no protective orders are put in place. The failure to put in place an interim or full SPO at the earliest opportunity puts victims at risk of further acts of stalking, which increases the potential psychological and physical harm that they're likely to suffer. Data on SPOs is also limited and outdated, making it hard to establish how many are refused by the courts.

It is both right and logical that SPN should be enabled and put in place. Following a similar approach to. They would offer immediately, immediate police applied protection in stalking cases and set a time frame for the courts to consider a full order. It cannot be right that at the moment, a woman who is at risk of violence from a stalker has less protection than a woman at risk of violence at the hands of her domestic abuser. So steps must be taken to bring this into line.

The hour is late, but I will cite one case study from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust relating to delays in SPOs and the harm caused. This particular case. Opened in January 2025. The client was subjected to criminal damage, fixation complaints to her employer and an online campaign aimed at discrediting her. The offender also moved House to be closer to the client. This has had a significant impact on her quality of life. The case has had four different oics and different teams from the onset, which has caused considerable delay to the detriment of the client.

An SPO has been considered throughout the investigation, but there's been little progress or ownership of responsibility across the police force. The advocate has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Several complaints have been made to the police and the local MP, but as far as the advocate knows, no response has been received. Legal services within the force had been contacted about an SPO in February 2025, but at this time multiple witness statements had been obtained to support the application. The police stated that the SPO application was submitted in March 2025.

However, this turned out to be incorrect. The judge, in a separate Non-molestation order request hearing, asked why after six months, has the force not secured an SPO? At the time of writing, the SPO application was sitting with the force's legal services awaiting a court date. Due to the time elapsed, the perpetrator has now been on bail for so long that it's required a magistrates application to require a bail extension. My Lords, this and hundreds of similar cases demonstrate the need for swift action and the introduction of stalking protection protection notices.

I beg to move.
23:26
23:26
23:27
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
the point that the government are not taking a strong enough line on sentencing for those convicted of sentencing for those convicted of stalking offences. That remains the case, and I hope Ministers will case, and I hope Ministers will heed that warning. Violence against women and girls is unacceptable. I think we can all agree that and we think we can all agree that and we must have a zero tolerance approach. Strengthening stalking protection orders is just one step, but we do orders is just one step, but we do need to take a tougher approach on sentencing and enforcement.

On amendment 30 13A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royle, we view that as a reasonable proposal which Ministers should consider. It sets out the structure of the FPN procedure, and the noble Baroness also spoke to existing flaws in the current SPO system. I've got a couple of questions, and I'd be grateful if the noble Lords Minister could consider. Does the government feel that the existing Stalking Protection Order system is dealing with orders sufficiently quickly? And what steps are Ministers taking to speed up the process where issues arise? Given the hour, I don't intend to detain the House further, other than to say that we accept the government's amendments in this group on the civil standard of proof, which respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royle.

And they do have the effect of clarifying the position on the standard of proof used when imposing SPOs clarity of the law and its application are essential parts of any just legal system, and we welcome them.
23:29
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Well said. >> Thank you everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. And as my noble friend Baroness Royall of Blaisdon has set Baroness Royall of Blaisdon has set out amendment three one Lord Reay would introduce stalking Protection notice, which could be imposed by an officer of at least the rank of a superintendent. I am grateful to my noble friend for continuing to raise the operational issues impacting how well stalking protection orders work in practice, and the differences between existing protective order frameworks for addressing violence against women and girls.

I am also grateful to my noble friend together, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton and the noble Lord Lord Russell of Liverpool for meeting with my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, the Minister, to discuss their amendment. I understand and sympathise with the intention of noble Lords to address this issue in advancing against Against Women and Girls Strategy, published in December, we committed to launch Stalking Protection Order Intensification sites in select police force areas. These will aim to drive up use of stalking protection orders and provide opportunities to test innovative approaches to enforce conditions and monitor breaches, which could be adopted nationwide ahead of making legislative change.

To introduce stalking protection notices, there are several issues that need further consideration. For example, stalking protection orders are currently applicable for defendants aged over the criminal age of responsibility, that is, the age of ten. This amendment was introduced to Stalking Protection Notice only for defendants aged 18 or older, introducing different processes for defendants based solely on age could be vulnerable to challenge. Under articles eight and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But I do want to say that I fully understand the devastating impact that stalking has on its victims, as set out by my noble friend in that single case study that she she quoted.

And the government is determined to do all it can to provide proper protections for victims. It will consider the introduction of stalking protection notice as part of an internal review into stalking protection orders. In tandem, it will consider the recommendations of the Stalking Legislation Review conducted by Richard Wright KC, which is due to be completed this month. And of course, the government commits to update the House on the progress of both pieces of work within four months. Rest assured, my Lords, that if the conclusion of these pieces of work point to the need for further legislative changes, the government will seek to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The noble Lord Lord Cameron of Lochiel tried to tempt me to make comment on kind of the the operational undertakings of the way that that these the the current regime acts is if if it's if it's speedy enough, I won't be drawn into commenting on those particular operational practices. But I do want to point, as I've already said out, that we are in our Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, launching intensification sites in select areas which will look at the the best way of tackling of of of driving up the use of stalking protection orders.

And also, as I said, testing innovative approaches to enforcing conditions and monitoring breaches so that we are very we're very conscious of the fact that we are we are constantly we want to constantly improve the way that we do this. But I'm not going to go any further than that. However, I hope on that basis, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble friend. Yeah. I'm I've just had a look to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm I've just had a look to see if I can find any data on the number of stalking protection orders issued to those under 18, and the answer is that they're not and the answer is that they're not disaggregated. And I just wondered if the noble Lord, the Minister, could give us some indication, could give us some indication, because he's drawing this great distinction about the those aged distinction about the those aged between 10 and 17. And we've just had a debate on another matter where we think there's a very small number involved.

It would be useful to know if we could have some help from the Minister on likelihood of numbers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid it may not entirely surprise that noble, the noble Lady that I don't have that that that that I don't have that that that that not only the data but the the awareness of what we can do with the data to hand. But I'm certainly happy to undertake to to write to her with as much detail as we can, as we can summon. So I would hope on that. On that basis, my noble friend would be content not to move her.

Amendment 3138 and with other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her. Amendment 3138 and with other noble Lords, support the government amendments in this group. I beg to move. Kushner's Amendment 308 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it amendments 309 to 313 Lord Hanson of Flint moved formerly. The question is amendments 309 to 313 be agreed to en bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it.

Amendment 313 a Baroness Royall of Blaisdon for the response from my noble friend the Minister. I didn't really understand the point about age, so I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Baroness Brinton, and I look forward to reading Hansard and to receiving a letter. Likewise, it's great to know that there's an
23:34
23:35
None Portrait Amdt. 317 Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-

the understudy, I'm afraid my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones couldn't be with us any longer. But the hour is late, and I don't think anybody can accuse my noble friend of not putting in a shift. So I will. Very briefly, he gave me brief notes. I will try and proceed them further. This is inspired by charities feeling that the advice they give out may be caught by the act. Now, of course, this will not be the intention of government, but the up theory of history is one which I have always found very appealing.

And if it can go wrong, it probably will unless you put something in place. I believe the my noble friend was waiting for a back from a letter from the noble Baroness, who's been saying I'm not policing his inbox, so I don't know what's happened there. But if we can get some clarity from the Dispatch Box, that steps will be made. So there is no confusion. So this very important work can take place. The the noble Baroness should replying to this would be actually doing us all a favour and making sure help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can be given to people who desperately need it. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 116, insert the following new clause as printed on the master

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. But I'm grateful to have written the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, which I crossed out, and then put the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie, which I've then also crossed out.
23:37
23:38
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I too had a speech that started off thanking the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones I to cross that out and wrote in the noble Lady Baroness Doocey duty. But I also now thank the noble Lord Lord Addington for speaking to this amendment. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones not in his place now for meeting me to discuss his amendment, and I think I was able to persuade him and to reassure him that guidance on the application clauses 115 116 is not necessary.

I also wrote to him I know I cleared the letter. I think it may even have been the day before yesterday, but I think I've just received a message saying that it may not have been sent until this afternoon, but it has definitely gone and we have placed a copy in the House library. And I hope that that the letter was written with the intention that it could be sent to the various charities so that they could see exactly what it was that I was saying.

And as the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and I discussed the existing offence which these amendments seek to broaden the existing offence under section 184 of the Online Safety Act, is already in active use by the CPS and by law enforcement. We are not aware of any cases involving therapeutic support, where prosecutors have struggled to determine whether a prosecution was appropriate. The CPS guidance is clear about the requirement of intention, which must be present to meet the threshold of the offence, and the CPS legal guidance will be updated to reflect the widened scope of the offence, which now covers conduct both online and in person.

The offence also contains two important safeguards. First, the defendant must intend to encourage or assist the serious self-harm, and secondly, there must be capable of doing so. These safeguards ensure that vulnerable individuals and those providing mental health support are not also inadvertently captured. I should make it clear that it is absolutely not the government's intention to target either vulnerable people or the therapeutic services that support them. The government believes the offence as it operates now and as it will be expanded in the Bill, is proportionate and targets only the most serious and culpable offending.

I hope that the noble Lord is content with these reassurances and will withdraw his amendment.
23:40
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Progress made in relation to the (1) implementation, and (2) outcomes, of the Child Poverty Strategy
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page